Gender equality at Wimbledon

oddman2

So I don't know if people have been following this story at all, but Gilles Simon, a male tennis player, has been coming under fire for saying that he thinks that men and women shouldn't be paid equal prize money for competing in the Grand Slams. He's claiming that all the men on tour privately agree with him but they can't say it in public for fear of angering sponsors.

Article link. It's a little long so I won't post the whole thing but this is an excerpt from the article:

Simon maintained he was aware of how much women had to struggle for equity in so many aspects of life and that he supports that – but just not in terms of being paid the same money as men to play tennis.

He reasoned: “It just doesn’t work in entertainment, because entertainment is not about being a man or woman. It’s just about the public coming to watch you, or not. It’s not about how hard you work. You can work hard and be a very famous singer. You can work hard and just sing in your bathroom. That’s the way it works. It’s maybe sad but this is the way it works.

“It has nothing to do with men and women. In life in general, of course, I’m for it. Tomorrow if women’s tennis is more interesting than men’s tennis, if the price of the woman’s final is higher than the price of the men’s final, they will deserve to win more money than us.”

The demand for the respective games is reflected in the prices for the finals:

He introduced into the evidence the price of tickets for the respective finals at Wimbledon. Independent research revealed and by way of comparison that a debenture ticket for Centre Court next Saturday (women’s final) costs £850 (€1,050), while the following day (men’s final) it is an eye-watering £3,500.

I'm a little torn on it, in some ways Simon makes quite a good point. If we look at football for example, the Arsenal women's football team has been much more successful than the men's team in recent years, but they get paid a fraction of the wages of the men because the interest in the women's game is just not big enough. Then again, maybe the overall message of equality that this sends is more important than any other concerns. Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this.

Outkast_IRE

oddman2 wrote: »

So I don't know if people have been following this story at all, but Gilles Simon, a male tennis player, has been coming under fire for saying that he thinks that men and women shouldn't be paid equal prize money for competing in the Grand Slams. He's claiming that all the men on tour privately agree with him but they can't say it in public for fear of angering sponsors.

Article link. It's a little long so I won't post the whole thing but this is an excerpt from the article:


The demand for the respective games is reflected in the prices for the finals:



I'm a little torn on it, in some ways Simon makes quite a good point. If we look at football for example, the Arsenal women's football team has been much more successful than the men's team in recent years, but they get paid a fraction of the wages of the men because the interest in the women's game is just not big enough. Then again, maybe the overall message of equality that this sends is more important than any other concerns. Just wondering what people's thoughts are on this.

I honestly feel if the women want equal pay(no gender barrier) they should have to play vs men. Problem solved

The mens game is far more entertaining to watch, with imo better quality throughout the ranks.

puffishoes

Arsenal women's 11 V's Manchester united's women's 11

stadia capacity. 60K+

Your looking at an attendance of maybe 1k people

for the mens your talking 60k+

The difference in the pay day on the day is so big it's not even worth discussing.

They shouldn't be paid equally as they don't generate equally and in terms of football are not equal on any level.

I don't see why it should be any different for any sport. the wages are generally based on profit generated and should be paid accordingly.

Bobsammy

I think that if the women want equal pay they should do the same work as men. I don't think they should play against men because obviously most women can't compete with men in terms of their strength.
But men play best of 5 sets at Wimbledon whereas women play best of 3. If they want equal pay then they should be playing the same amount of tennis. In theory a woman can win Wimbledon having played just 14 sets whereas a man will have to play at least 21.

Eric Cartman

I think everybody would be in the same boat in saying that if equal work was done and in the case of sporting events that equal interest was brought , that the pay should be the same.

But in so many sports either the rules for the womens tournament are easier or theres simply a low interest in it , so ofcourse women should be paid less.

Its the equality mafia that demanded equal pay for less work that harmed womens competetive edge in the workplace too.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

leggo

He's right. And when you add the point of unequal workload that's been mentioned, it makes it an open and shut case.

It's not a men vs women's issue, that just happens to be the divide in question that both sides are happy with. It's a case of one side of the game being much more in demand and playing longer games than the other. There's no counterpoint, plain and simple.

It's ridiculous that political correctness must, at times, come at the cost of common sense.

ziggy

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Even then, look outside the grand slams and see which generates the most money, the men's game or the women's game.

Galvasean

I don't see why tennis has become this battle ground for 'equality'. If one person worked a 3 hour shift at any job and someone else worked a five hour shift of course the company is going to pay the one doing more work a higher wage. Especially if you factor in how the one doing the longer hours is bringing in significantly more money to the company. Why should tennis be any different?

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't see why tennis has become this battle ground for 'equality'.

The slams are one of the fairly rare times in sports where men and women compete "side-by-side". I think in Athletics the prize money is usually equal despite obvious differences in standards.

pajunior

Chimpokomon wrote: »

Aren't women just crap at everything? Except being in the kitchen amirite :pac::pac::pac:

Dontcha just hate them?

No need for the sarcasm, if you disagree why don't you just say so with a reasonable argument?

oddman2

Thought there might be a bit more of a divide on this, everyone seems to agree with him!

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't see why tennis has become this battle ground for 'equality'. If one person worked a 3 hour shift at any job and someone else worked a five hour shift of course the company is going to pay the one doing more work a higher wage. Especially if you factor in how the one doing the longer hours is bringing in significantly more money to the company. Why should tennis be any different?

Ok, but he's not really complaining about the 3-versus-5 set idea, more the interest each side generates in the sport. One of the reasons the equal pay was brought in was that Venus Williams campaigned very hard for it. And one of the examples used was that in the 2005 Wimbledon final her match was considerably longer than the men's final. 2hrs 45min versus 1hr 41min. Number of sets doesn't necessarily correlate with length of matches.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think everybody would be in the same boat in saying that if equal work was done and in the case of sporting events that equal interest was brought , that the pay should be the same.

But in so many sports either the rules for the womens tournament are easier or theres simply a low interest in it , so ofcourse women should be paid less.

Its the equality mafia that demanded equal pay for less work that harmed womens competetive edge in the workplace too.

Maybe it's not as simple as this, though. This is complete conjecture here but:

What if the fact that women were paid less in the past reinforced the idea that the men's game is superior and this has percolated down through every aspect of the game. Should they not, then, try to break that cycle?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

puffishoes

oddman2 wrote: »

Maybe it's not as simple as this, though. This is complete conjecture here but:

What if the fact that women were paid less in the past reinforced the idea that the men's game is superior and this has percolated down through every aspect of the game. Should they not, then, try to break that cycle?

Past wages and increasing wages will do nothing to speed up a woman's serve for example. You can't "pay" the women tennis players to play in a more "exciting" way it's not like suggesting by increase a female boxers wages they will become "stronger"

People usually pay top dollar to see the best at whatever sport it is the gender is not really relevant but women's tennis is not the best, it's slow and slow tennis != exciting tennis. slow football != exciting football etc etc

Why would they be paid the same when their delivering an inferior product compared to the men?

Honey-ec

puffishoes wrote: »

Why would they be paid the same when their delivering an inferior product compared to the men?

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I've zero interest in tennis but a lot of my friends (of both genders) who do watch it prefer the women's game because you tend to get more rallies and extended phases of play as opposed to ace after ace after ace in the men's game.

Different doesn't automatically mean inferior.

Bobsammy

Honey-ec wrote: »

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I've zero interest in tennis but a lot of my friends (of both genders) who do watch it prefer the women's game because you tend to get more rallies and extended phases of play as opposed to ace after ace after ace in the men's game.

Different doesn't automatically mean inferior.

I definitely prefer the womens game, I think if you have two big hitters in the mens it can often be quite boring! One thing I really like about tennis though is that the men and women get equal exposure which is a rare thing in sports!

Honey-ec

Honey-ec wrote: »

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I've zero interest in tennis but a lot of my friends (of both genders) who do watch it prefer the women's game because you tend to get more rallies and extended phases of play as opposed to ace after ace after ace in the men's game.

Different doesn't automatically mean inferior.

Well there we have a difference of opinion, I stopped watching women's tennis not long after the Williams sisters started dominating. The game moved closer to the men's in playing style but was far inferior.

puffishoes

Honey-ec wrote: »

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I've zero interest in tennis but a lot of my friends (of both genders) who do watch it prefer the women's game because you tend to get more rallies and extended phases of play as opposed to ace after ace after ace in the men's game.

Different doesn't automatically mean inferior.

Ah, so my 30 kph serve is not inferior to a professional it's different.

I feel much better.

the opinion that matters is the one paying for the tickets who pay much higher pricest for the higher standard of tennis.

I'm sure there's always going to be a few who love a bit of mediocricy like your pals but if there not putting top dollar down to watch it then the players won't be getting paid top dollar.

oddman2

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're right, that's probably not true in general, it was more just to highlight the fact that simply comparing 3-versus-5 sets doesn't tell the whole story. In general, rallies are longer in women's tennis than in men's, as Honey-ec said.

puffishoes wrote: »

Past wages and increasing wages will do nothing to speed up a woman's serve for example. You can't "pay" the women tennis players to play in a more "exciting" way it's not like suggesting by increase a female boxers wages they will become "stronger"

People usually pay top dollar to see the best at whatever sport it is the gender is not really relevant but women's tennis is not the best, it's slow and slow tennis != exciting tennis. slow football != exciting football etc etc

Why would they be paid the same when their delivering an inferior product compared to the men?

Maybe the point of giving equal wages is the example it sets rather than the specific details of who brings in what sponsorship. Sport can be inspiring and maybe for young kids watching they won't necessarily notice the difference that much between the quality of play but if they see that women get less than men for the same achievement - being Wimbledon champion - it might push the idea through that women and men shouldn't get equally rewarded for the same thing.

Maguined

It doesn't even matter which is "better" tennis between men and women's, as in the interview the only thing that matters is more people are willing to spend more money to watch men's tennis than women's.

Professional wrestling is "fake" in that it is sports entertainment and not real competition, however it is up to each individual performer to negotiate their pay contracts with the organisation based upon how much public support they bring which results in more consumer spending.

yawha

Maguined wrote: »

It doesn't even matter which is "better" tennis between men and women's, as in the interview the only thing that matters is more people are willing to spend more money to watch men's tennis than women's.

Sort of. It doesn't really translate to an obligation on the organizers of Wimbledon to pay the players any particular amount, private organization and all that.

They should make the women's game 5 sets IMO.

matthew8

It's such a joke, they even charge more to see the men's final than the women's final but the prize money is the same? The women's game is less followed so they should get paid less. End of.

ToxicPaddy

As someone has already used soccer players as an example.. I'll continue on that path.

Its all down to the supply & demand from both the clubs and spectators.

Clubs see players as assets and or liabilities, they can bring them in, make money off, have success in various competitions, sell merchandise because of them and sell them on when their usefullness/money making capabilities drop.

Look at clubs like Real Madrid who bought David Beckham and their merchandise sales went through the roof especially in Asia. Didn't Adidas back his transfer to the LA Galaxy as they wanted to use his face to break the US market and loosen Nike's strangle hold that they had.

Tennis, golf and numerous other sports are the same. Its about demand and supply. If people are willing to pay huge money to see a particular player be it male or female, then that person will get larger sums for appearance money and tickets can fetch higher prices. But you also need to increase the prize money to attract the big players.

As much as I dont really agree with everything that guy says, some of it is true and the numbers prove it. People are willing to pay nearly 4 times the price to see a mens final compared to a womens final.

Not very fair in reality but the numbers are what determine final result and the the spectators who in the end call the shots.

Hazys

oddman2 wrote: »

Ok, but he's not really complaining about the 3-versus-5 set idea, more the interest each side generates in the sport. One of the reasons the equal pay was brought in was that Venus Williams campaigned very hard for it. And one of the examples used was that in the 2005 Wimbledon final her match was considerably longer than the men's final. 2hrs 45min versus 1hr 41min. Number of sets doesn't necessarily correlate with length of matches.

I don't see how that is a valid argument: One Women's game went longer than Men's.

By that theory, you could also argue Women's prize money shouldn't be equal to Men's but it should be higher than Men's.

Honey-ec wrote: »

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I've zero interest in tennis but a lot of my friends (of both genders) who do watch it prefer the women's game because you tend to get more rallies and extended phases of play as opposed to ace after ace after ace in the men's game.

Different doesn't automatically mean inferior.

Your friends must be a minority subset of the greater Tennis fanbase as men's tennis is a lot more popular than women's tennis.

Men's tennis draws larger crowds, higher ticket prices, more endorsements, high quality of play and play 5 set games as opposed to Women's tennis...there is no way the prize money should be equal...its PC gone mad and in the end all it does is belittle equality.



For people argueing that it is right that Women's prize money should be equal to Men's prize money for tennis...what are your toughts on Women's prize money in Golf being a hell of a lot smaller than Men's prize money? Especially since they play the same number of rounds and holes.

Men's golf draws larger crowds, higher ticket prices, more endorsements, high quality of play, etc. Economics decides that Male golfers get paid more than Women. If they were to pay Men and Women the same in the name of "Equality", that would be very belittling of women.

panda100

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't usually write on TGC, but this post really infuriated me. With that deluded logic, until men can have babies then they don't deserve the same rights as mothers :rolleyes:

Women tennis players are doing the same work as men by playing 3 sets, because we are not built the same. You have to take into consideration natural biology. Until you do that we will always have the blatant sexism that is being seen on this thread.

Also,womens tennis is very popular and just as demanding physically, why is it even a question that they should get paid less??

Eric Cartman

oddman2 wrote: »

What if the fact that women were paid less in the past reinforced the idea that the men's game is superior and this has percolated down through every aspect of the game. Should they not, then, try to break that cycle?

Ok , possibly, but then you have to change the mindset of the sponsors, fans, media and advertisers to bring the womens game up to the same popularity and financial gain. But making the players pay equal wont achieve that, consequently it could be due to external forces entirely , maybe if you tried to charge the same ticket prices, advertising, TV rights etc. to the companies for the womens tournament then the popularity would go down. Without being a fly on the wall at a load of board meetings its impossible to know whos responsible for the difference in popularity.

Although im not a tennis fan, I think if equal pay was to be brought up then the first step would definitely be to get women playing the 5 sets.

Eric Cartman

panda100 wrote: »

I don't usually write on TGC, but this post really infuriated me. With that deluded logic, until men can have babies then they don't deserve the same rights as mothers :rolleyes:

Women tennis players are doing the same work as men by playing 3 sets, because we are not built the same. You have to take into consideration natural biology. Until you do that we will always have the blatant sexism that is being seen on this thread.

Also,womens tennis is very popular and just as demanding physically, why is it even a question that they should get paid less??

so your basically saying that women cant play the 5 sets that men can, but should still be paid the same despite (by your own admission) not being physically capable of doing the same amount of work)

"until men can have babies then they don't deserve the same rights as mothers"
they dont have the same rights as mothers, paternity leave, custody in divorce cases , men are at a disadvantage here because they are not mothers and its always been like that

yawha

Like I said above though, it's not like Wimbledon is a public body. They are a private organisation who can do what they like with their money.

I've no background on the history or circumstances as to why they started having the same prize money for men and women, but I would imagine that the economics of the situation are not linear, and I would severely doubt it's just a case of "PC gone mad" (whatever that means). Wimbledon still does things like putting more conventionally attractive female competitors on bigger courts over better female athletes.

There could be a whole bunch of reasons why they did it - a publicity boost, greater support for the women's game from some areas etc.

ntlbell

panda100 wrote: »

I don't usually write on TGC, but this post really infuriated me. With that deluded logic, until men can have babies then they don't deserve the same rights as mothers :rolleyes:

Women tennis players are doing the same work as men by playing 3 sets, because we are not built the same. You have to take into consideration natural biology. Until you do that we will always have the blatant sexism that is being seen on this thread.

Also,womens tennis is very popular and just as demanding physically, why is it even a question that they should get paid less??

because they generate less income, did you even read the article? :rolleyes:

yawha

panda100 wrote: »

Women tennis players are doing the same work as men by playing 3 sets, because we are not built the same. You have to take into consideration natural biology. Until you do that we will always have the blatant sexism that is being seen on this thread.

I actually disagree here. Women are rather capable of running marathons, for example. Is there any evidence to suggest that women are not capable of playing the best of 5 sets in tennis?

Gbear

This needn't be viewed in gender terms.

I think that a female tennis player should have no more right to claim discrimination based on pay when compared to a male tennis player than a snooker player should be able to claim that he's being discriminated against because he earns less than a soccer player.

LegacyUser

According to QI ,a definitive source for everything

, is women playing in the singles in Wimbledon are more likely to play in the doubles as well. The top women are also more likely to win in both singles and doubles.

The fact is that men will expect to have to play more games to reach the final of Wimbledon and win than a woman would.

So women often walk away from Wimbledon with higher prize money, despite playing the same number of games.

e.g in 2002, the williams sisters contested the final of the singles and wonthe doubles championships
the mens singles final was Lleyton Hewitt and David Nalbandian
The doubles was Jonas Björkman and Todd Woodbridge

If you wanted to be alarmist you could say
"The men are denied the ability to earn the same as women as they are forced to play in longer matches.

leggo

panda100 wrote: »

Also,womens tennis is very popular and just as demanding physically, why is it even a question that they should get paid less??

It is very popular. That's why they get paid very much.

It's not AS popular, though. Which is why people are saying that they shouldn't get paid AS much.

oddman2

matthew8 wrote: »

It's such a joke, they even charge more to see the men's final than the women's final but the prize money is the same? The women's game is less followed so they should get paid less. End of.

Just to clarify, I think the figures quoted are for second-hand sales, so it's more what the market views them to be worth. I'm sure the actual tickets are the same price for both.

Hazys wrote: »

I don't see how that is a valid argument: One Women's game went longer than Men's.

By that theory, you could also argue Women's prize money shouldn't be equal to Men's but it should be higher than Men's.

My point was that it's not as linear as saying that playing best of 5 as opposed to best of 3 is more physically demanding/takes longer. Women's rallies take longer in general than men's do, which may mean more running.

Hazys wrote: »

For people argueing that it is right that Women's prize money should be equal to Men's prize money for tennis...what are your toughts on Women's prize money in Golf being a hell of a lot smaller than Men's prize money? Especially since they play the same number of rounds and holes.

The difference is that the men and women are playing here at the same championship with roughly equal billing.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Ok , possibly, but then you have to change the mindset of the sponsors, fans, media and advertisers to bring the womens game up to the same popularity and financial gain. But making the players pay equal wont achieve that, consequently it could be due to external forces entirely , maybe if you tried to charge the same ticket prices, advertising, TV rights etc. to the companies for the womens tournament then the popularity would go down. Without being a fly on the wall at a load of board meetings its impossible to know whos responsible for the difference in popularity.

Although im not a tennis fan, I think if equal pay was to be brought up then the first step would definitely be to get women playing the 5 sets.

That's the point, though, attitudes are the hardest thing to change, and sometimes it takes a big gesture in order to start the process.

oddman2

yawha wrote: »

Like I said above though, it's not like Wimbledon is a public body. They are a private organisation who can do what they like with their money.

I've no background on the history or circumstances as to why they started having the same prize money for men and women, but I would imagine that the economics of the situation are not linear, and I would severely doubt it's just a case of "PC gone mad" (whatever that means). Wimbledon still does things like putting more conventionally attractive female competitors on bigger courts over better female athletes.

There could be a whole bunch of reasons why they did it - a publicity boost, greater support for the women's game from some areas etc.

I think when they first started the championships they started with men only because they were of the opinion that women wouldn't be able to play demanding tennis. And then when they opened it up to women they only made it 3 sets because they thought they wouldn't have the stamina. Different times, I guess. :rolleyes:

In fact, equal pay only came in in 2007. They resisted it for a long time, but they were coming under a heap of pressure from all quarters, Tony Blair as PM even weighed in on the equal pay side.

Hazys

oddman2 wrote: »

My point was that it's not as linear as saying that playing best of 5 as opposed to best of 3 is more physically demanding/takes longer. Women's rallies take longer in general than men's do, which may mean more running.

Fair enough, its not as linear as 5 sets Vs 3 sets but i think the amount of sets is one of many aspects why its unfair to have the same prize money. The others are viewership, sponsorship, quality of play, etc.

The only figures i can find on the length of games, is the average for women's games are 2 hours and men's games are 3 1/2 hours.

The difference is that the men and women are playing here at the same championship with roughly equal billing.

Then the doubles tournaments and junior tournaments should have the same money even tho they dont have the same demand as the men's tournament.

If the only difference between Golf tournaments and Tennis tournments is the fact the play on the same weekend...is it unfair that the same women's golf tournament pays less than the men's?

If the men's tennis tournament was held one week and the women's another, could they justify paying the same prize money?

Paying women the same money for something they didnt earn is demeaning.

Hazys

http://www.tennistweets.com/blog/24/2009-wimbledon-facts-and-figures.php

2009 Wimbledon

* Wimbledon Men’s Singles Final: Roger Federer’s victory over Andy Roddick was watched by a peak audience of 11.2m (6.25pm) viewers on BBC One.

* Ladies’ Singles Final between Serena and Venus Williams was watched by a peak audience of 4.2m (with the match averaging 3.4m)

2/3X as many people watched the men's final as opposed to the women's final in 2009.

Regardless of how many sets were played, thats 2/3X more sponsorship, tv money, etc earned by men over women, yet they earn the same...how is that fair?

Spin the organisation into two seperate tournaments and sell the TV Rights separately and see who'll pay what for each. There we go, equality.

desertcircus

Talk of how the men's game is more popular than the women's fails to take into account the fact that this state of affairs isn't set in stone. The Wimbledon final that saw Federer beat Roddick was an astonishing occasion; Federer had beaten Nadal in four sets in 2006 and five sets in 2007, before losing in five to him in 2008; when Nadal pulled out injured, and Roddick made the final, it was a chance to see whether Federer was weakening or whether he was still better than everyone bar Nadal. The women's game is currently badly disjointed and doesn't have any clear hierarchy of talent; compared to that, the men's game has a man in near-perfect form over the last two years in Novak Djokovic, the best clay court player in the history of the game in Rafa Nadal, and the best player in history in Federer - with Andy Murray hovering on their shoulders, ready to grab any opportunity with both hands. Ten years ago, though, Pete Sampras was crushing everybody else round after round with endless aces, and it was as boring as hell.

Comparing the viewing figures for Federer-Roddick on British TV with the same figures for Williams-Williams on British TV is disingenuous, particularly since it makes no mention of the viewing figures outside the UK - and even more so because Wimbledon and the English tend to think of Federer as an adopted son of London - and still more so because the 16-14 final set scoreline inflates the audience as people tune in to watch the match just keep going. What were the viewing figures for American TV? What were the figures for any other year than the year the greatest player in history regained the title he held for five years in astonishing circumstances, playing the longest final in Grand Slam history?

matthew8

Women tennis players are doing the same work as men by playing 3 sets, because we are not built the same. You have to take into consideration natural biology. Until you do that we will always have the blatant sexism that is being seen on this thread.

So I guess the under 18s men's winner should get paid the same as the senior men's winner despite playing less because he's less physically developed.

Also,womens tennis is very popular and just as demanding physically, why is it even a question that they should get paid less??

It's simply not as demanding to play 3 sets.

matthew8

oddman2 wrote: »

Just to clarify, I think the figures quoted are for second-hand sales, so it's more what the market views them to be worth. I'm sure the actual tickets are the same price for both.

They're not. Men's final costs like £15 more.

iptba

yawha wrote: »

Like I said above though, it's not like Wimbledon is a public body. They are a private organisation who can do what they like with their money.

I've no background on the history or circumstances as to why they started having the same prize money for men and women, but I would imagine that the economics of the situation are not linear, and I would severely doubt it's just a case of "PC gone mad" (whatever that means). Wimbledon still does things like putting more conventionally attractive female competitors on bigger courts over better female athletes.

There could be a whole bunch of reasons why they did it - a publicity boost, greater support for the women's game from some areas etc.

All I recall was the "equality" argument. Some of the other slams had gone to equal prize-money a few years before and each year they got bashed for not having it. I don't believe they did it for a "publicity boost" (except that they were receiving negative publicity for not doing it in the previous years).

Basically, it seems to me that they were in a way "bullied" in to it.

strobe

panda100 wrote: »

I don't usually write on TGC, but this post really infuriated me. With that deluded logic, until men can have babies then they don't deserve the same rights as mothers :rolleyes:

Women tennis players are doing the same work as men by playing 3 sets, because we are not built the same. You have to take into consideration natural biology. Until you do that we will always have the blatant sexism that is being seen on this thread.

But female soccer players play for 90 mins. Female rugby players for 80 mins like the guys. Female marathon runners run 26 miles just like the men. How weird to suggest that when it comes to tennis and tennis alone the little girlies have to play for shorter 'cause of their natural biology...

Anyway...

I don't think the 3 sets 5 sets thing should have much to do with anything. However it makes reasonable sense to me that if the mens game generates a greater income for the people handing over the prize money then the prize money could be greater. Not going to lose any sleep over it though and it's their prize money to divide how they see fit. Maybe they feel that by going down this whole equal prize money route it'll pay off more for them in the long run than if they did not.

yawha

strobe wrote: »

But female soccer players play for 90 mins. Female rugby players for 80 mins like the guys. Female marathon runners run 26 miles just like the men. How weird to suggest that when it comes to tennis and tennis alone the little girlies have to play for shorter 'cause of their natural biology...

Anyway...

I don't think the 3 sets 5 sets thing should have much to do with anything. However it makes reasonable sense to me that if the mens game generates a greater income for the people handing over the prize money then the prize money could be greater. Not going to lose any sleep over it though and it's their prize money to divide how they see fit. Maybe they feel that by going down this whole equal prize money route it'll pay off more for them in the long run than if they did not.

Nail on head.

avalon68

Well Id imagine the prize money is derived from income gathered from sponsors, tv rights etc? Sponsors get the same airtime for mens and ladies tennis....all of the main matches are televised afterall. Personally I prefer to watch ladies tennis - more rallies, and generally more tennis - I hate matches that serve up ace after ace. A wimbledon champion is a wimbledon champion, male or female, and imo should receive the same prize money. Judging by other product advertisements, male professional tennis players (and most other sports) attract very lucrative sponsorship deals and probably out-earn the ladies off the court.

Blisterman

It's worth noting that many female players play both singles and doubles in the same tournament, something that's unusual for top male players, who play best of five.

In fact, in the past 15 years, 28 women have appeared in the finals of both singles and doubles of a grand slam, while in the same period, no man has achieved this.

So obviously, playing best of five does take a lot more out of the players than playing best of three, regardless of the gender.

Personally, I think there should be equal pay, but both men and women should play best of five.

avalon68

Aren't a lot of men's matches best of 3 too? Isn't it only the grand slams that are 5? I thought the ATP tour was 3 sets in general....

nbar12

avalon68 wrote: »

Aren't a lot of men's matches best of 3 too? Isn't it only the grand slams that are 5? I thought the ATP tour was 3 sets in general....

I'm almost positive that the case yeah

avalon68

avalon68 wrote: »

Aren't a lot of men's matches best of 3 too? Isn't it only the grand slams that are 5? I thought the ATP tour was 3 sets in general....

On the tours it's almost all best of 3 and the men get paid more. Why? Well because they're separate tours and the mens' brings in more in spectator money, TV money and sponsorship. The Grand Slams are the only times the genders play "together" and the women piggy-back on the money generated by the men's tournament.

pajunior

Does anyone think women would even get close to the same amount of money if the grand slams were seperate?

pajunior

pajunior wrote: »

Does anyone think women would even get close to the same amount of money if the grand slams were seperate?

Only people who are purposely being really obtuse.