you guys talk about equaling prize money, I say the women should start playing 5 sets

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
In grand slams just like the men.

I know the scheduling would be a little bit disturbing, but why not put 5 setter in last 16 or quarters for them? Plenty of the women has said they are up for it according to stacy allester, CEO of the WTA.

This talk about that their physique is not good enough, is bollocks. They are not paralyzed, they train professionally with professionall staff ever day in the week.
 

marc45

G.O.A.T.
Murray's mother said today that women should do it in semis and finals, but not about money, just to give someone in Bouchard's position more time to figure something out...and for the crowd to have more tennis
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
I agree. More tennis is always a good idea in my book. Also, the idea that they can't play 5 sets, that it's more taxing on their bodies is completely absurd. Not only have they played 5 setters before (remember the Masters finals at the end of the year?) but the effort is always proportional: 5 sets is as painful for men as it is for women. And if they agree with the change, why not? The scheduling issue can be seen as a good opportunity to revamp the Slams, add roofs, make the whole thing better and more efficient. I would also make the finals of Masters Series tournaments best of five for both men and women.
 

BGod

Legend
I agree about semifinal and final also.

As for all around, when I was younger I use to think so but now it would be a devastating handicap to those women who couldn't outlast 3 sets and that would be most of them.

You can't escape biology.
 

andrewski

Semi-Pro
I agree about semifinal and final also.

As for all around, when I was younger I use to think so but now it would be a devastating handicap to those women who couldn't outlast 3 sets and that would be most of them.

You can't escape biology.
Well, you can, at least financially. :)

There are long threads on this forum about women players and equal prize money and what can be done about it.

I agree at least they should play 5 sets in SF and F.

Otherwise, do you really want to see women playing 5 set matches in early rounds?

It would be tedious and disrupt the schedules in case of adverse weather.

I think they should play their 3 sets mini matches and get paid accordingly, but hey wind is strong with PC gender equality circus, so nothing will change.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Apparently WTA has commercial clout to demand what they want.

They may just say it will be more entertaining to viewers if it is just best of 1 set.
 

CurrenFan

Rookie
Their serves aren't good enough. So too many long points equal can't play 5 sets. Sorry.
This doesn't make any sense.


=====================

Equal pay for equal work.

Computer programmer A works a minimum 40 hour week, makes X dollars.

Equivalently skilled and experienced computer programmer B works less-than-full-time at the same employer, putting in a 27 hour week, and should make roughly 2/3X dollars.

I'm not sure I understand why this is different in tennis. Yes, men can run faster over any distance and can lift more and serve harder. But there are plenty of women completing marathons at quite respectable rates, so significant endurance is not solely the domain of male athletes.

I wonder if the end result of 5 set matches for women would be obviously fatigued players playing at less than full abilities plus added injuries, or if the women would simply incorporate more fitness training and deal with it, the same as men do.
 

ctoth666

Banned
This doesn't make any sense.


=====================

Equal pay for equal work.

Computer programmer A works a minimum 40 hour week, makes X dollars.

Equivalently skilled and experienced computer programmer B works less-than-full-time at the same employer, putting in a 27 hour week, and should make roughly 2/3X dollars.

I'm not sure I understand why this is different in tennis. Yes, men can run faster over any distance and can lift more and serve harder. But there are plenty of women completing marathons at quite respectable rates, so significant endurance is not solely the domain of male athletes.

I wonder if the end result of 5 set matches for women would be obviously fatigued players playing at less than full abilities plus added injuries, or if the women would simply incorporate more fitness training and deal with it, the same as men do.
Who wants to watch five sets of women's tennis? I don't.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
This doesn't make any sense.


=====================

Equal pay for equal work.

Computer programmer A works a minimum 40 hour week, makes X dollars.

Equivalently skilled and experienced computer programmer B works less-than-full-time at the same employer, putting in a 27 hour week, and should make roughly 2/3X dollars.

I'm not sure I understand why this is different in tennis. Yes, men can run faster over any distance and can lift more and serve harder. But there are plenty of women completing marathons at quite respectable rates, so significant endurance is not solely the domain of male athletes.

I wonder if the end result of 5 set matches for women would be obviously fatigued players playing at less than full abilities plus added injuries, or if the women would simply incorporate more fitness training and deal with it, the same as men do.
All the work done is not seen in matches or on TV at the Slams. In a typical office setting, most, if not all, of the work being done by said employees is done on the clock, in the office building, on company resources. How many office workers would spend obscene amounts of time just putting in work with no pay to get a shot at a tournament to maybe be the "winner" in hopes of recouping the money they put in to their work just to get a shot at winning?
 

xFedal

Legend
In grand slams just like the men.

I know the scheduling would be a little bit disturbing, but why not put 5 setter in last 16 or quarters for them? Plenty of the women has said they are up for it according to stacy allester, CEO of the WTA.

This talk about that their physique is not good enough, is bollocks. They are not paralyzed, they train professionally with professionall staff ever day in the week.
Finally theres something I can agree with you:shock:

They should play 5 sets if they want equal pay. Not fair on men to play more and bring the rating and get paid equal.:mad:
 

easywin

Rookie
Why do women get nearly equal money at all ? I don't have numbers to back this up so all of this is just my opinion/assumptions. I'm trying to be realistic though.

The grandslams draw the largest part of its viewers because of ATP players. A grandslam without the WTA would loose viewers, a grandslam without the ATP would not sell anything comparably at all.

Organizers would gain NOTHING out of 5 set matches on the women side.
It would make scheduling harder but it won't draw more viewers.

Equal pay for equal work is hard to use in this discussion. If we want to go on a quality level, there would be no WTA. I'm very sure every top100 male beats the top WTA girls easily - so we should give the WTA #1 the same money as ATP #101 ?
No because nobody knows ATP #101 but everybody (well thats exagerated) knows the WTA #1 - or at least Sharapova.

Women could easily endure the stress 5setters put on the body. There are so many awesome female athletes out there - sadly not that much in tennis but they would be able to deal with it.
Main point : nothing gained by doing that.
The business is about money, not letting Bouchard think about a tactic so that she has a fair chance to adapt to the situation.

The average viewer won't be glad to see a 5setter that could've ended in 3 on the WTA. Debatable but thats how I feel
 

CurrenFan

Rookie
All the work done is not seen in matches or on TV at the Slams. In a typical office setting, most, if not all, of the work being done by said employees is done on the clock, in the office building, on company resources. How many office workers would spend obscene amounts of time just putting in work with no pay to get a shot at a tournament to maybe be the "winner" in hopes of recouping the money they put in to their work just to get a shot at winning?

I read this three times and have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
If a men's match does not go 5 set, should they be played less?

I'm assuming in professional tennis players are not paid by the set.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
I don't want to watch basically any women's tennis, but especially not 2 grunters shrieking their way through a 5 hour match. The obvious result would be mass, public suicide. These ain't the days of Evert/Navratilova no mo'.
 

Avles

Hall of Fame
Murray's mother said today that women should do it in semis and finals, but not about money, just to give someone in Bouchard's position more time to figure something out...and for the crowd to have more tennis
Agreed, a two set GS final just feels wrong.
 

robok9

Semi-Pro
I'm at kind of a crossroads. I agree with the point of equal work for equal pay, but I also don't really want women's tennis to go to 5 set format. By that logic, I would default to wanting lower women's prize money, but we all know that the women's rights activists would never let that happen. I feel like this thread needs a poll.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I agree. More tennis is always a good idea in my book. Also, the idea that they can't play 5 sets, that it's more taxing on their bodies is completely absurd. Not only have they played 5 setters before (remember the Masters finals at the end of the year?) but the effort is always proportional: 5 sets is as painful for men as it is for women. And if they agree with the change, why not? The scheduling issue can be seen as a good opportunity to revamp the Slams, add roofs, make the whole thing better and more efficient. I would also make the finals of Masters Series tournaments best of five for both men and women.
It used to be this way, they got rid of this for a reason. People playing epic 5th sets at Indian Wells would then withdraw from Miami or same thing with Rome/Hamburg or Canada/Cincy. Remember Masters have no days off between matches and the doubles start immediately after. It would reduce the quality of the 2nd tournament in the line-up.
 

Midaso240

Hall of Fame
Slams would turn into 3 week slogs if women played 5 sets. Would just take too long to get through the schedule. Women would probably ultimately become better players playing 5 sets though,it might be ugly to start with,but 20-30 years down the track,women would have upped their fitness and strength levels significantly...
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The legal formula is not equal pay for equal work, but equal pay for work of equal value.

Tournament directors essentially decide commercial value by judging the market.

Tennis is one of very few sports that is almost gender-integrated and this is one of its greatest attractions.

So women's tennis is not equivalent in quality to men's tennis, but since when did the marketplace have much to do with quality?
 

andrewski

Semi-Pro
If a men's match does not go 5 set, should they be played less?

I'm assuming in professional tennis players are not paid by the set.
So if the number of sets or time spend on court and TV screens is not a criteria to share out the money, then surely money generated by men and women should be?

WTA prize money in 2012 was $53mln whereas for ATP in 2011 it was $80mln.

There is no reason to believe that ratio for GS tournaments would be any different.

So effectively men players subsidize women players in GSs.

Usual answer to this "inconvenient truth" is PC lobby stuff about gender equality, playing the same game (clearly not in quality, unless you are blind) etc.

Let's not forget that tennis is not just about top 10-20 players.

Why should male player ranked 100 and barely making enough to cover his expenses subsidise rich female players like Sharapova, Azarenka or Williams?

It is clear example of gender discrimination in reverse.
 

andrewski

Semi-Pro
It used to be this way, they got rid of this for a reason. People playing epic 5th sets at Indian Wells would then withdraw from Miami or same thing with Rome/Hamburg or Canada/Cincy. Remember Masters have no days off between matches and the doubles start immediately after. It would reduce the quality of the 2nd tournament in the line-up.
The argument here is about GS primarily.

Most WTA and ATP tournaments are separate, so issue is not relevant there.
 

wangs78

Hall of Fame
In grand slams just like the men.

I know the scheduling would be a little bit disturbing, but why not put 5 setter in last 16 or quarters for them? Plenty of the women has said they are up for it according to stacy allester, CEO of the WTA.

This talk about that their physique is not good enough, is bollocks. They are not paralyzed, they train professionally with professionall staff ever day in the week.
I 100% agree. Same pay for same rules / same number of sets, etc. There is absolutely no reason why women should not play best of 5 sets. No reason at all.
 

andrewski

Semi-Pro
The legal formula is not equal pay for equal work, but equal pay for work of equal value.

Tournament directors essentially decide commercial value by judging the market.

Tennis is one of very few sports that is almost gender-integrated and this is one of its greatest attractions.

So women's tennis is not equivalent in quality to men's tennis, but since when did the marketplace have much to do with quality?
But your argument is wrong because women tennis is not of equal value.

WTA prize pool in 2012 was $53mln

ATP prize pool in 2011 was $80mln

There is no logical reason that commercial value of women tennis would be the same as men in GS but different otherwise.

I am happy to listen to any evidence that it is.

All this talk about gender integration is just PC lobby bu***st.

Why should male player ranked 100 barely making a living, subsidize rich female players in GSs?

Pay them accordingly to economic value of their efforts, if crude measures like numbers of sets and time spent on court are not good enough.

I think women should play at least GS Final and SF as a 5 set matches. So late in the tournament it would not cause any scheduling difficulties.
 

OTMPut

Hall of Fame
People extrapolate the current playing style and wonder about 5 sets.

If best of 5 sets were introduced, WTA tennis style itself would change. You might start seeing more intelligent, attacking tennis to conserve energy/strength.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think the wta players are happy because they get to spend much less time on the court then men and still get enormous amount of money. Tennis is primary for most players, money secondary, atleast thats what I think.

I think players in bouchards position(and even herself) would be happy to have more time to change a match. That day there was no chance for bouchard to do anything to change the match.
 

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
Should women play 5 sets in tennis Grand Slams?
In case some people can't be bothered opening the link to this article.


Does a long match always equal to a great match? Not always. While many choose to not read a particular book because it's too thick, or not watch a particular film because it's too long, that's not how it works in sports. Can you decide before a match, in any sport, whether you're going to watch it or not, depending on its duration? No, right?







Earlier this week, Stacy Allaster, CEO of the Women's Tennis Association (WTA), said that female players are ready and willing to play 5 set matches in Grand Slams. The comment comes after Andy Murray became the latest player to talk about equal match lengths for men and women. So will they? More importantly, should they?

Let's make it clear that it's definitely not a 'oh, but they are the weaker sex' debate. Something like this has to be looked at from a bit of a social perspective. Equal pay, which is a relatively new thing in tennis, should ideally mean equal play. And that's exactly what the male players are asking, why do we have to play longer matches if the money we're getting paid is that same? Let's be honest. That apart, there isn't exactly a clamour to get women to play longer tennis matches. It would be safe to say, that compared to the insanely high levels of men's tennis, women's tennis today is a bit of an inferior product.

Those that are big fans of modern day women's tennis (and I don't know many of those), would say, of course, there must be 5-setters for women too. It's not the question of fitness, as I've mentioned before. If women can run marathons and triathlons, if they can participate in football and cricket matches as long as the ones men play, then why not in tennis too? I'm trying to remember really hard of a women's singles Grand Slam final that I watched in recent years and said, "Wow, what an epic match!". I can't remember any. Will the women produce better tennis if they have to play an extra set or two? Will it change the fact that many of them play boring baseline tennis, and they may just be more aggressive because they have to play for longer? It could make the women's game a little more entertaining, you never know.

But does a long match always equal to a great match? Not always. While many choose to not read a particular book because it's too thick, or not watch a particular film because it's too long, that's not how it works in sports. Can you decide before a match, in any sport, whether you're going to watch it or not, depending on its duration? No, right? (Though I do it regularly with T20 cricket, but in quite the opposite way. It's supposed to be shorter and hence more entertaining, but it's not my preferred format to watch)

Women have played 5-setters, by the way. Between 1984-1998, the year ending competition for women was played in a best-of-five format. Apparently the reason for it was to let fans watch Martina Navratilova play for longer! In a regular match, she usually wouldn't take more than 45 minutes to get the better of her opponent. But here's what. Chances are it's going to feel like a good movie gone bad because of those last 30 minutes that did nothing apart from making it drag.

There really is no end to this debate. Because the equal pay rule won't change, and neither will men play best-of-three sets, just to make things equal. But then a Grand Slam is supposed to be grand, and yes, women deserve to play epic matches too. It would then not be such a bad idea to get women to play 5-setters just in the semis and final of a Grand Slam, instead of the full two weeks. Athletes train all their lives. So endurance and stamina isn't a problem at all.

Just remember that longer matches for women also means having to bear with the grunting for longer!
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
I posted this elsewhere but it still applies to this thread.

Why do the women tennis players get the same prize money as the men at the slams.?

Because the WTA has the commercial clout to get it. Put it another way, the slams would have lost far more in revenue from the women boycotting the tournaments than they lost by agreeing to equalise the prize money. If mens doubles or wheelchair players had the same commercial power as the WTA they would have equal prize money too.

Can you imagine if a man and a woman worked for the same company but the woman had to work 3 times as long, sell much more product, and be much better at the job to get the same pay. Surely we would all say this was wrong.

Neither the men nor the women are PAID anything at the slams. They compete for PRIZES for winning rounds. It would be absurd of John Isner to think that he was somehow being treated unfairly for getting the same first round prize for winning 70 – 68 in the fifth set as another man gets for winning with a walkover. The prize is for the win not for the amount of time, effort, sets etc so equal pay legislation/theory is irrelevant here.

The men's game is more popular and brings in the most money and it's not even close. The women's game is riding on the men's.

No it isn’t. You are aware that apart from the slams, the WTA has its own totally independent tour and that it is very successful?

From the WTA site:
The WTA is the global leader in women's professional sport with more than 2,500 players representing 92 nations competing for a record $118 million in prize money at the WTA's 54 events and four Grand Slams in 33 countries. Close to 5.4 million people attended women's tennis events in 2013 with millions more watching on television and digital channels around the world.

http://www.wtatennis.com/scontent/article/2951989/title/about-the-wta

Did you know that at the joint event in Miami 2013, the women’s champion got a bigger prize than the man?

ATP Winner: Andy Murray $719,160
WTA Winner: Serena Williams $724,000


Obviously the WTA must be doing very well if it can afford to reward its winners with a larger cheque than the ATP.

Now if you are a top woman and on your own tour you can get prize money more or less the same as the top men all year around, why would you come to a Slam and agree to play for less?

Popularity? You do know that 116 million people in China alone watched Li Na become French Open champion? Find me a men’s match that has received anything close to those ratings.

You might not care but the slams surely do care about the sales of TV rights and corporate sponsors do care about being able to gain access to emerging markets in Asia and the Middle East where women’s tennis is much more popular than men’s. Having a product that attract 100 million+ viewers makes the WTA a powerful negotiator in the international sports sector.

You might not like or respect women’s tennis but around the world there are plenty of people who do and more than enough of them to make the WTA tour very strong and successful and give it the corporate clout to get what it wants in business.

A player ranked 7000 in the world could beat Serena Williams with one arm tied behind his back. He should get a bigger prize because he is a better player?

No! Either one of the Klitschko brothers could beat Manny Pacquiao to a pulp. Does that mean that they are either better boxers or more entertaining and deserve bigger prizes? Of course not.

Pacquiao is much bigger box office than the two Klitschkos put together. Although smaller and less powerful, Pacquiao at his best has more character, is more skilful, more inspiring and more entertaining than just about anyone else.

Sure neither Williams or Li Na would pose any kind of threat to a mediocre, mindless ATP ball basher like Dimitri Tursunov but I know for sure that I, and the vast majority of the tennis watching public would much rather watch either woman than that clueless ox clubbing the ball for all its worth with seemingly no brain engaged.

In business you don't get anything for nothing. If women have achieved parity in tennis it is because they have leverage. They have leverage because they have a very popular product that has global appeal and can no longer be ignored.

Deal with it.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
A player ranked 7000 in the world could beat Serena Williams with one arm tied behind his back. He should get a bigger prize because he is a better player?

No! Either one of the Klitschko brothers could beat Manny Pacquiao to a pulp. Does that mean that they are either better boxers or more entertaining and deserve bigger prizes? Of course not.

Pacquiao is much bigger box office than the two Klitschkos put together. Although smaller and less powerful, Pacquiao at his best has more character, is more skilful, more inspiring and more entertaining than just about anyone else.

Sure neither Williams or Li Na would pose any kind of threat to a mediocre, mindless ATP ball basher like Dimitri Tursunov but I know for sure that I, and the vast majority of the tennis watching public would much rather watch either woman than that clueless ox clubbing the ball for all its worth with seemingly no brain engaged.

In business you don't get anything for nothing. If women have achieved parity in tennis it is because they have leverage. They have leverage because they have a very popular product that has global appeal and can no longer be ignored.

Deal with it.


There's one problem, though. The women are NOT a bigger draw like Pacquiao is.

I understand your point about commercial clout, but that's really just explaining WHY they get equal prize money, not a solid argument that they should. It's certainly not the one supports cite as their position.

"The brave Billie Jean King was able to create enough of a PR nightmare that it was cheaper to just give them the money!" is not the rally cry you hear.

It would be like if women WERE bringing in as much money and I defended them getting less prize money by saying "well, they don't have the bargaining power to get it." It would be true and accurate, but not a good argument that it was fair.

Are you really saying the lower ranked men are brainless ball bashers? Have you watched the WTA lately? That's pretty much the exclusive style.
 
Last edited:

Thriller

Hall of Fame
A player ranked 7000 in the world could beat Serena Williams with one arm tied behind his back. He should get a bigger prize because he is a better player?

No! Either one of the Klitschko brothers could beat Manny Pacquiao to a pulp. Does that mean that they are either better boxers or more entertaining and deserve bigger prizes? Of course not.

Pacquiao is much bigger box office than the two Klitschkos put together. Although smaller and less powerful, Pacquiao at his best has more character, is more skilful, more inspiring and more entertaining than just about anyone else.

Sure neither Williams or Li Na would pose any kind of threat to a mediocre, mindless ATP ball basher like Dimitri Tursunov but I know for sure that I, and the vast majority of the tennis watching public would much rather watch either woman than that clueless ox clubbing the ball for all its worth with seemingly no brain engaged.

In business you don't get anything for nothing. If women have achieved parity in tennis it is because they have leverage. They have leverage because they have a very popular product that has global appeal and can no longer be ignored.

Deal with it.
There's one problem, though. The women are NOT a bigger draw like Pacquiao is.
Serena Williams is the biggest draw in the U.S. Her matches are always on at primetime and generally get better ratings than the men. Last year's US Open ratings showed again the power of the Williams brand.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013...res-better-tv-ratings-men/49130/#.U8AHsmK9KSM

Li Na is the biggest draw in Asia. Tens of millions watch her matches. No other tennis player can draw the same numbers which is why she gets the likes of Nike, Rolex, Mercedes and Samsung willing to pay through the nose for her endorsements.

Biggest draw in Europe? After the big four it is arguably Maria Sharapova in terms of star power, recognition etc.

Africa? I don't know for sure but I am guessing it is the Williams sisters.

Even at Wimbledon the bastion of all things traditional there have been examples of womens matches proving to be more popular. 2005 Wimbledon, the ladies final was longer, higher quality and got a million more TV viewers than the mens final in the UK. That final was probably the turning point in the fight for equal prize money. The idea that women's tennis is de facto lower quality and less popular than the mens became untenable.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
It used to be this way, they got rid of this for a reason. People playing epic 5th sets at Indian Wells would then withdraw from Miami or same thing with Rome/Hamburg or Canada/Cincy. Remember Masters have no days off between matches and the doubles start immediately after. It would reduce the quality of the 2nd tournament in the line-up.
That's a scheduling problem, not a problem inherent to playing 5 sets. If anything, this change would force the ATP to schedule the season in a more pragmatic way.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The reality is that Grand Slam directors essentially decide what they think the commercial value is and whether the difference is such that it should outweigh other social factors.

They came to the decision some time ago for equality and there is no serious tournament or wider social support for that to be otherwise.

The Australian Open is moreover run at a venue into which governments have plowed hundreds of millions of dollars.

Do you really think they can seriously turn around to female taxpayers and say, sorry, women should get 25% less pay?

The fact is that national associations, tournament directors and managers of all stripes make the most money of all.

There is no zero sum money game being played between men and women. They raised women's salaries to men's levels.

Moreover, the money returned as prize money in slams is around 30% whereas NBA players get 50%.

Malie tennis players get paid little because it is not a team sport and they have little collective bargaining power.



But your argument is wrong because women tennis is not of equal value.

WTA prize pool in 2012 was $53mln

ATP prize pool in 2011 was $80mln

There is no logical reason that commercial value of women tennis would be the same as men in GS but different otherwise.

I am happy to listen to any evidence that it is.

All this talk about gender integration is just PC lobby bu***st.

Why should male player ranked 100 barely making a living, subsidize rich female players in GSs?

Pay them accordingly to economic value of their efforts, if crude measures like numbers of sets and time spent on court are not good enough.

I think women should play at least GS Final and SF as a 5 set matches. So late in the tournament it would not cause any scheduling difficulties.
 
Last edited:

mtommer

Hall of Fame
I read this three times and have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
It means women train just as hard as men for their job and the payout should reflect more than just the play that's done at a tournament. Every 9-5 job out there pays for training if it's needed for your job. And before anyone brings up college, that's the equivalent of juniors. Once a player graduates to a pro, ideally there should be club system of some sort that pays each pro. Since there isn't, it's incumbant upon tournaments to make up for that within the confines of what they can do realistically. Women train, ie "work", just as much as men so they should be compensated equally.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
Serena Williams is the biggest draw in the U.S. Her matches are always on at primetime and generally get better ratings than the men. Last year's US Open ratings showed again the power of the Williams brand.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013...res-better-tv-ratings-men/49130/#.U8AHsmK9KSM

Li Na is the biggest draw in Asia. Tens of millions watch her matches. No other tennis player can draw the same numbers which is why she gets the likes of Nike, Rolex, Mercedes and Samsung willing to pay through the nose for her endorsements.

Biggest draw in Europe? After the big four it is arguably Maria Sharapova in terms of star power, recognition etc.

Africa? I don't know for sure but I am guessing it is the Williams sisters.

Even at Wimbledon the bastion of all things traditional there have been examples of womens matches proving to be more popular. 2005 Wimbledon, the ladies final was longer, higher quality and got a million more TV viewers than the mens final in the UK. That final was probably the turning point in the fight for equal prize money. The idea that women's tennis is de facto lower quality and less popular than the mens became untenable.
You're looking at the exceptions, not the rule. Flat out, the men's tournaments bring in more money than the women's. They also draw more viewership in the slams. Yes, there are some women who are more popular than some men, but we're not talking about individuals.
 

JonC

Banned
"Because the WTA has the commercial clout to get it. Put it another way, the slams would have lost far more in revenue from the women boycotting the tournaments than they lost by agreeing to equalise the prize money. If mens doubles or wheelchair players had the same commercial power as the WTA they would have equal prize money too."

So you admit it's blackmail and not based on fairness - a percent of revenue. Not much to hang your hat on. Further, that whole line of reasoning is flawed - the women would never boycott the GSs. Instead, they would give endless interviews about misogyny in the tennis hierarchy, old boys club - you know the drill. The media would have been thrilled to support the current "scandal" of the good old boys club of tennis - who can't see that? So no, it's not marketing clout at all, it's PC blackmail.
 

CurrenFan

Rookie
Part of the problem is that there is some obvious chauvinism going on here, same as when any conversation comes up with women's sports. I've been to all sorts of college and pro-sporting events and I'll confess that I do find women's basketball to be most disparate from the men's game because of the slower pace and less scoring, and I find it to be less interesting than watching men play a game I already find only mildly interesting. Women's lacrosse is also a lot milder and less interesting, but that is in significant part the result of the equipment - the women's stick has a shallower pocket designed to make it a less aggressive game, so it's harder to maneuver and pass while keeping the ball in the pocket.

Otherwise, I find most men's and women's sports to be roughly equivalent in entertainment value, even if women could not directly compete with men in that sport. A lot of male club pros sneer out of jealousy at the LPGA players and many think they could win every week if they somehow could get on the LPGA tour, but I've walked with some top-20 female golfers at an LPGA major and these women are consistently hitting amazing shots that no male club pro I've ever played with or seen hit shots could duplicate frequently. I'd rather attend an LPGA event than a PGA one - the crowds are smaller, one can get much closer to the players, one still sees many incredible shots and the women are much more willing to sign autographs for kids than the men. For me, the women's game is plenty exciting, even if statistically the women can't putt worth a damn in comparison to the men (literally, no LPGA player would come close to the top 30, maybe top 50 PGA putters, which is strange and shouldn't be the case because it's purely a skill activity and strength is irrelevant). So far this year, the two top money winners on the LPGA tour are each making more than double what the #3 money winner has earned. And Stacy Lewis, #1 on the LPGA money list, would be #33 on the PGA money list. The #3 player on the LPGA money list would be #94 on the PGA money list. The #50 player on the LPGA money list has made $119,000 this year (not much more than travel expenses cost her), the #50 PGA player has made $1.44 million. And the LPGA players walk and play 18 holes a day, same as the men (albeit on shorter courses, but for physical effort, strolling an extra 600-800 yards over a 3-5 hour round is hardly of consequence).

So maybe the WTA needs to take a look at the LPGA and count themselves blessed, as they genuinely are getting paid the same for less work, at least at the bigger tournaments, and their sisters who chose to swing a golf club instead of a tennis racquet are getting paid pennies on the dollar compared to the men, for playing a more closely comparable game.

In tennis, someone claiming he doesn't like watching the women play is letting bias cloud his objectivity; maybe years ago he asked a member on the girl's tennis team to prom and she wasn't kind in telling him "No." The particular matchups, on a match-by-match, day-by-day basis, make a much bigger difference in the quality of the match than the ATP vs. WTA comparison. For me, I'd rather see 74% of WTA first serves going in at an average speed of 92mph with 4 aces, than an ATP match with 30 aces at an average speed of 115mph, but a first serve percentage of only 52%. I've seen plenty of women's games this year that were more exciting than games on the men's tour.

Anyway, isn't the main complaint that people have had with the men's game over the past several decades is that it's become a serving contest and power-fest, with most points decided within the first two shots after the serve and there are few lengthier, quality rallies any more? The same people are probably complaining that the women's game is too slow and the points take too long, so there's just no pleasing some people.
 
Last edited:

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
^^
Jon,for over 40 years the US Open has been men and women have been paid the same, way before the term PC was invented. Guess what, civilization didn't crumple.
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
"Because the WTA has the commercial clout to get it. Put it another way, the slams would have lost far more in revenue from the women boycotting the tournaments than they lost by agreeing to equalise the prize money. If mens doubles or wheelchair players had the same commercial power as the WTA they would have equal prize money too."
So you admit it's blackmail and not based on fairness - a percent of revenue. Not much to hang your hat on. Further, that whole line of reasoning is flawed - the women would never boycott the GSs. Instead, they would give endless interviews about misogyny in the tennis hierarchy, old boys club - you know the drill. The media would have been thrilled to support the current "scandal" of the good old boys club of tennis - who can't see that? So no, it's not marketing clout at all, it's PC blackmail.
It's not blackmail, it is business!

The WTA has a product to sell and they want a fair price for it from the slams. If the slams cannot afford to or do not want to pay the price then the WTA won't continue to sell it to them. They can afford to take that attitude because they have a great product that the slams need.

Now if mens doubles players were to say to the slams, give us equal prize money as the single players or we won't play ... they'd be laughed at and told to take a hike. They don't have as commercially valuable a product and therefore they don't have any leverage to demand more. When you make money, people listen to you. If you have nothing to put on the table, you are stuffed.

The economic success of the independent WTA tour is crucial to the maintenance of equal prize money. If interest in the women's game collapses then their prizes will too. It has happened before:

1995
A few weeks ago, the Australian Open announced it was increasing the men's prize money by 17%, but the women's by only 6%. Officials explained the change as economically driven, saying the men's matches consistently earned higher television ratings.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-12/sports/sp-2415_1_australian-open

2000
Bart McGuire, chief executive of the WTA tour, said the decision (to reinstate equal prize money) was important move to recognize the strength and appeal of the women's tour.

"Equalizing prize money at the Grand Slams is a major goal," said McGuire. "It is a goal that we have preferred to approach through persuasion and diplomacy rather than through more aggressive means.

"Tennis Australia has responded very positively to our approach, and to the fact that women's tennis has generated record attendance and extraordinary worldwide publicity, as well as dramatically increased television coverage and television ratings."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/equal-prize-money-at-australian-open-637129.html


It nothing to do with so-called PC, and feminist conspiracies ... it is all about economics.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
It nothing to do with so-called PC, and feminist conspiracies ... it is all about economics.

Sony Ericsson, 6 year title sponsor of WTA, dropped sponsorship last year. Wonder why ?

Why are they not able to add prize money in non joint tournaments ?

The only new tournaments that the tour is adding is WTA 125 .
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Sony Ericsson, 6 year title sponsor of WTA, dropped sponsorship last year. Wonder why ?

Why are they not able to add prize money in non joint tournaments ?

The only new tournaments that the tour is adding is WTA 125 .
Do you know how many title sponsors the ATP Tour has gone through?
It's the nature of the business.

As I stated before, the US Open has been equal pay for 40 years.
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
Sony Ericsson, 6 year title sponsor of WTA, dropped sponsorship last year. Wonder why ?.
Mercedes, 11 year title sponsor of the ATP dropped sponsorship in 2008. ATP still hasn't found a replacement. Wonder why?

Global economic downturn probably.
 

HunterST

Hall of Fame
It's not blackmail, it is business!

The WTA has a product to sell and they want a fair price for it from the slams. If the slams cannot afford to or do not want to pay the price then the WTA won't continue to sell it to them. They can afford to take that attitude because they have a great product that the slams need.

Now if mens doubles players were to say to the slams, give us equal prize money as the single players or we won't play ... they'd be laughed at and told to take a hike. They don't have as commercially valuable a product and therefore they don't have any leverage to demand more. When you make money, people listen to you. If you have nothing to put on the table, you are stuffed.

The economic success of the independent WTA tour is crucial to the maintenance of equal prize money. If interest in the women's game collapses then their prizes will too. It has happened before:


It nothing to do with so-called PC, and feminist conspiracies ... it is all about economics.
I call yahtzee on the bolded parts.

The reason the women players have so much leverage is absolutely because of PC. Just look at the majority of the responses on these threads. They're riddled with accusations of sexism and backwards thinking.

Look at what a WTA spokesperson said in response to Simone's comments. It was something to the effect of "I can't believe any person in today's society could think a person doing equal work shouldn't get equal pay."

Without question, the reason the slams had to go to equal prize money was because the policies were regularly being called sexist and anti-equality.
 
Top