Fair Pay in Sport.

kneemos

Raymond Moore CEO of Indian Wells ( no idea ) reackons women tennis players should get down on their knees for players like Federer and Nadal for carrying the game,they don't make any decisions and made comments about attractive players coming through.
They get payed the same as men in the top tournaments at least,but not sure any other sport does this.
Does he have a hint of a point in that the womens sport sometimes gets a higher profile and prize money because of the popularity of the mens game?
The bloke resigned of course,can't say those things in this day and age.

Menas

In Tennis I reckon the womens games are actually more competitive and less predictable than the mens sport.
Same with Running and athletics.

kneemos

Forgot a link. https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35868662&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiJtdSB59PLAhWF6RQKHVbnDb0QqG8IKDAB&usg=AFQjCNEnid6UwEIUsGWVeBQOoWGupFQAlg

SEPT 23 1989

I thought it was one of the most equal sports in the world for media exposure

Shannon757

kneemos wrote: »

women tennis players should get down on their knees for players like Federer and Nadal

Don't they do that already?

Clandestine

kneemos wrote: »

Raymond Moore CEO of Indian Wells ( no idea ) reackons women tennis players should get down on their knees for players like Federer and Nadal

Would make Tennis more interesting at least

Maguined

Menas wrote: »

In Tennis I reckon the womens games are actually more competitive and less predictable than the mens sport.
Same with Running and athletics.

The issue is not with competitiveness but prize money due to marketability. When there are womens only tournaments the income generated through marketing and advertising is significantly less so the prize pool they can offer is much less than in joint tournaments where the income from the mens marketability is effectively subsidising the womens prize pool.

gramar

Mens sports attract more interest from the public, the sponsors, tv etc etc
That goes for pretty much any sport you can think of. It's hardly unfair to pay them more for producing what the vast majority would consider to be a better spectacle and for generating more income.

maudgonner

There's a video on the Guardian website.

He's some tulip, the eejit. He went on to say that the WTA has a handful of 'very attractive prospects, very attractive'. When a journalist gave him a chance to dig himself out of the hole and asked him to clarify whether he meant competitively attractive or physically attractive, he said: 'both, I mean both'.

What a gobshíte

CruelCoin

I think higher pay for mens tennis perfectly fine given they play more tennis!

The men play far more sets and attract far more viewers.

Do more, get more. It's not a difficult concept.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/21/novak-djokovic-is-right-male-tennis-players-do-deserve-to-be-paid-more-than-female-stars-5765546/

stimpson

If the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girl's sports, such as hot oil wrestling, foxy boxing, and such and such.

gramar

maudgonner wrote: »

There's a video on the Guardian website.

He's some tulip, the eejit. He went on to say that the WTA has a handful of 'very attractive prospects, very attractive'. When a journalist gave him a chance to dig himself out of the hole and asked him to clarify whether he meant competitively attractive or physically attractive, he said 'Both, I mean both'.

What a gobshíte

What he said was in essence correct. Making intentionally innuendo ridden comments like 'attractive' and 'get down on their knees' is just asking for trouble.

seamus

There's a chicken-and-egg scenario with this.

The mens' events receive more coverage and more funding. Which makes sports a more attractive pursuit for young men than young women. Which means the mens' events get more coverage and more funding, and so on. It's a constant feedback loop.

People will remark that the mens' events are more competitive, more impressive, that's why they're more popular. But that's part of the same feedback loop. Mens' event are more competitive because there are more people taking part, a much greater challenge to rise to, and far more money in it for coaches and sportspeople, therefore their training brings them to a higher level.

My belief is that all gender barriers should be lifted across sports at all levels. End any segregation, but start at the amateur levels first. A local football team can field as many teams as they want, and if the "A" team happens to be all boys because they're the best, so be it. But don't have a girls' and boys' team; then you're setting the girls up to fall behind.

Most professional sports are still inherently sexist at the top levels. Even though tennis is touted as the most equal sport in terms of coverage and pay, women still play shorter games than men. For no reason. Just like when women were banned from running marathons because it was believed they couldn't run that far, the womens' tennis tournaments are formatted in the belief that women aren't capable of playing as long as men.

benjamin d

If I was ten times world tiddlywinks champion by the logic of female tennis players I should be earning tens of millions, since I'm the best at my sport. The fact is the men's game earns significantly more money through sponsorship and merchandise than the women's, therefore the male players get more money. It's nothing to do with sexism. In professional sport money is the ONLY thing that matters. The men make more so they get more.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

There's a chicken-and-egg scenario with this.

The mens' events receive more coverage and more funding. Which makes sports a more attractive pursuit for young men than young women. Which means the mens' events get more coverage and more funding, and so on. It's a constant feedback loop.

People will remark that the mens' events are more competitive, more impressive, that's why they're more popular. But that's part of the same feedback loop. Mens' event are more competitive because there are more people taking part, a much greater challenge to rise to, and far more money in it for coaches and sportspeople, therefore their training brings them to a higher level.

My belief is that all gender barriers should be lifted across sports at all levels. End any segregation, but start at the amateur levels first. A local football team can field as many teams as they want, and if the "A" team happens to be all boys because they're the best, so be it. But don't have a girls' and boys' team; then you're setting the girls up to fall behind.

Not sure who you're trying to wind up with that.

biko

I think we need to start with banning Lingerie Rugby Football
A "sport" invented by **** and watched by ****.

Portraying women is "sexy" alternatives to "real" sports is not only demeaning, it's sexist and helps keep women's lib back.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure who you're trying to wind up with that.

But you're assuming I'm trying to wind someone up?

After Hours has made you terribly cynical.

maudgonner

gramar wrote: »

What he said was in essence correct. Making intentionally innuendo ridden comments like 'attractive' and 'get down on their knees' is just asking for trouble.

Well the language he used was so ridiculous that it's impossible to take him seriously. Who thought it was a good idea to let that man within an asses roar of a camera?

But I don't think what he said was correct either. What Djokovic said is different - that's something that can definitely be argued. But to say that the women players should be thankful Federer and Nadal were born because they're riding their coat tails is ridiculous.

If you ask anyone to name a handful of tennis players I think you're as likely to hear about the Williams sisters as you are Federer and Nadal. Steffi Graf and Martina Navratilova as Boris Becker and Bjorn Borg. Tennis is one of the very few sports where the women's profiles are as high as the men's.

The viewing figures is definitely worth looking at. I wonder if it's partly because the mens finals are traditionally on Sundays, the final day of tournaments. I'd imagine viewing figures for all sports are higher on Sundays?

BattleCorp

gramar wrote: »

Mens sports attract more interest from the public, the sponsors, tv etc etc
That goes for pretty much any sport you can think of.

Would women's beach volleyball not have a larger following than men's beach volleyball?

Jimoslimos

seamus wrote: »

My belief is that all gender barriers should be lifted across sports at all levels. End any segregation, but start at the amateur levels first. A local football team can field as many teams as they want, and if the "A" team happens to be all boys because they're the best, so be it. But don't have a girls' and boys' team; then you're setting the girls up to fall behind.

You simply can't have mixed-gender competition in many sports, biologically women are at an overall disadvantage when it comes to strength and size. Plus it would probably have the opposite effect of driving more girls away from sport - knowing they couldn't realistically compete with their male counterparts.

I think in competitions where mens and womens tournaments are run together, (Grand Slams, Indian Wells) the prize money should be equal. Sponsors can pay individuals (men or women) whatever they want, as can individual tournaments run respectively by the WTA or ATP.

callaway92

Menas wrote: »

In Tennis I reckon the womens games are actually more competitive and less predictable than the mens sport.
Same with Running and athletics.

Yes they are more competitive and less predictable (constant breaks of serve), but it's the pace of the game that lets it down (like most other female sports).

People watch the sports for the power and sheer strength. The men are more marketable because of this.

gramar

BattleCorp wrote: »

Would women's beach volleyball not have a larger following than men's beach volleyball?

I said pretty much any sport but if it does have a higher following you'd have to question the motives of those watching.

callaway92

BattleCorp wrote: »

Would women's beach volleyball not have a larger following than men's beach volleyball?

To the absolute casuals during the Olympic Games yes, in the long run with 90% of the fans, no, it's not even close. People watch for the class, not the ass.

kneemos

BattleCorp wrote: »

Would women's beach volleyball not have a larger following than men's beach volleyball?

Yes,but there's bikinis involved.

Maguined

biko wrote: »

I think we need to start with banning Lingerie Rugby Football
A "sport" invented by **** and watched by ****.

Portraying women is "sexy" alternatives to "real" sports is not only demeaning, it's sexist and helps keep women's lib back.

Their body their choice?

benjamin d

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I think in competitions where mens and womens tournaments are run together, (Grand Slams, Indian Wells) the prize money should be equal. Sponsors can pay individuals (men or women) whatever they want, as can individual tournaments run respectively by the WTA or ATP.

See that's all well and good until the sponsors say "well 10 million people watch this men's game so I'll give you X amount for this ad slot, while 7 million watch the women's equivalent so you're only getting Y amount for that slot." It really is all down to money. Men's body make-up means that they will always be the fastest, strongest and most skillful examples of any sport. People watch professional sport to see the best of the best. Therefore people want to see the men's more than the women's games. It's really as simple as that. No sexism, just the fact that men will always be the ones who are the very best at any sport.
Almost every woman I know who's into sport is overwhelmingly more into the men's version of their particular game, be it rugby, soccer, golf, tennis, whatever. So how is that sexism?

seamus

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You simply can't have mixed-gender competition in many sports, biologically women are at an overall disadvantage when it comes to strength and size. Plus it would probably have the opposite effect of driving more girls away from sport - knowing they couldn't realistically compete with their male counterparts.

Assumptions.

It has always been the assumption that women wouldn't be able to compete. So they haven't. Which means they can't.

I'm not going to deny that men on average are going to be bigger and stronger. But in how many sports is that an absolute deciding factor? So in some events, this fact means that by default more men will arrive at the top level than women - 100m sprint, boxing, wrestling, etc. Even then, there's a competitive issue; if a women can make the requirements to qualify for a men's heavyweight boxing bout, why shouldn't she compete?

But there are other events where gender makes basically no difference. Where 99% of the game is tactics and technique, not raw strength. Shooting. Tennis. Soccer.

Why do we still maintain gender separation for these, right from the very start when a child starts out?

beach_walker

seamus wrote: »

Why do we still maintain gender separation for these, right from the very start when a child starts out?

Won't speak for the rest but when I played Gaelic as a kid, teams were mixed up until U-12s. It was pretty obvious at that stage that it wasn't an equal playing field so to speak and made sense to have separate teams/streams.

gramar

seamus wrote: »

Assumptions.

It has always been the assumption that women wouldn't be able to compete. So they haven't. Which means they can't.

Even then, there's a competitive issue; if a women can make the requirements to qualify for a men's heavyweight boxing bout, why shouldn't she compete?

Why not indeed.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

But you're assuming I'm trying to wind someone up?

After Hours has made you terribly cynical.

seamus wrote: »

Assumptions.

It has always been the assumption that women wouldn't be able to compete. So they haven't. Which means they can't.

I'm not going to deny that men on average are going to be bigger and stronger. But in how many sports is that an absolute deciding factor? So in some events, this fact means that by default more men will arrive at the top level than women - 100m sprint, boxing, wrestling, etc. Even then, there's a competitive issue; if a women can make the requirements to qualify for a men's heavyweight boxing bout, why shouldn't she compete?

But there are other events where gender makes basically no difference. Where 99% of the game is tactics and technique, not raw strength. Shooting. Tennis. Soccer.

Why do we still maintain gender separation for these, right from the very start when a child starts out?

Should be a laugh when we do your idea, have no segregation and the girls get beaten again and again. I'm sure that'll increase female participation.

As for Tennis and Soccer being examples where you think parity could be almost reached, well, I'll just leave you to mull that over.

osarusan

Karsten Braasch was ranked 203 in the world when he played the Williams sisters in a two set match. They were 17 and 16. Venus was in the top 10 of the world. Braasch was somewhat well-known for smoking during changeover breaks.

He beat Serena 6-1 and then Venus 6-2.

BattleCorp

seamus wrote: »

But there are other events where gender makes basically no difference. Where 99% of the game is tactics and technique, not raw strength. Shooting. Tennis. Soccer.

I'll agree with you on the shooting. I have sometimes been beaten by a woman when target shooting.

But come on, are you seriously saying that women are on par with men in tennis and soccer? Get real.

gramar

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll agree with you on the shooting. I have sometimes been beaten by a woman when target shooting.

But come on, are you seriously saying that women are on par with men in tennis and soccer? Get real.

I've been beaten by women at plenty of things but I'm not an elite athlete.
Top male athletes in virtually any discipline will beat women. Darts sport or not but again top male players are well ahead of women and it could hardly be less physical.

osarusan

osarusan wrote: »

Karsten Braasch was ranked 203 in the world when he played the Williams sisters in a two set match. They were 17 and 16. Venus was in the top 10 of the world. Braasch was somewhat well-known for smoking during changeover breaks.

He beat Serena 6-1 and then Venus 6-2.

US women's team had a practice match against the U-17 national men's team. 8-2.

As for "technique" being important, of course it is, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Jimoslimos

seamus wrote: »

Assumptions.

It has always been the assumption that women wouldn't be able to compete. So they haven't. Which means they can't....

...But there are other events where gender makes basically no difference. Where 99% of the game is tactics and technique, not raw strength. Shooting. Tennis. Soccer.

Why do we still maintain gender separation for these, right from the very start when a child starts out?

It's not assumptions, it's basic human physiology. Males have much greater muscle mass and circulating testosterone - even hypogonadal males have higher levels than women with PCOS.

Shooting, darts, bowls, snooker - yes. Tennis and soccer no.

Dirty Dingus McGee

biko wrote: »

I think we need to start with banning Lingerie Rugby Football
A "sport" invented by **** and watched by ****.

Portraying women is "sexy" alternatives to "real" sports is not only demeaning, it's sexist and helps keep women's lib back.

I had no idea this sport existed until now.Thank you for spreading the gospel of this wonderful sport.

Alf Veedersane

The issue isn't whether female tennis players can compete with male tennis players.

It's whether or not they generate the same revenue through tv, marketing etc.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Although what Moore said isn't probably politically correct an he'd have been better of to stay quiet he is right.There is no doubt female tennis players benefit from their connection to the mens game .

Tennis is the most high profile female sport by far but I'd imagine if the biggest events of the year were not played alongside the men the status of the womens game would diminish significantly.

Seeing as the mens game generates more money and ticket prices for the mens grand slam finals are higher which indicates that the organizers consider them more important , it's a bit odd that the male players don't get more money for their efforts .

I don't particularly care about the women being paid proportionally more for grand slam events but it's just strange that there never seem to be any calls for equality when inequality benefits women.

BattleCorp

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It's not assumptions, it's basic human physiology. Males have much greater muscle mass and circulating testosterone - even hypogonadal males have higher levels than women with PCOS.

Shooting, darts, bowls, snooker - yes. Tennis and soccer no.

Men are taller in general than women. So would being tall be an advantage in darts and snooker?

Dyr

What are the chess rankings like these days?

Dirty Dingus McGee

BattleCorp wrote: »

Men are taller in general than women. So would being tall be an advantage in darts and snooker?

Women have even stuggled against men in those sports which require low levels of physicality.

I think men are more suitable to sport psycholigically simply because they are more likely to become completely obsessive about something trivial than women, and being obsessive is a large part of what makes a successful sportsperson.

Jimoslimos

BattleCorp wrote: »

Men are taller in general than women. So would being tall be an advantage in darts and snooker?

No, not so much - as long as you aren't a dwarf, these games are nearly 100% skill.

Basketball on the other hand.

BattleCorp

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, not so much - as long as you aren't a dwarf, these games are nearly 100% skill.

Basketball on the other hand.

Darts, someone tall is closer to the dart board and therefore has a marginal advantage.

Snooker, a tall person can reach more shots without stretching or resorting to the rest.

These are only fractional advantages but in sport that can make all the difference.

Jimoslimos

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Women have even stuggled against men in those sports which require low levels of physicality.

I think men are more suitable to sport psycholigically simply because they are more likely to become completely obsessive about something trivial than women, and being obsessive is a large part of what makes a successful sportsperson.

There's a number of reasons, but that sort of amateur psychology bullsh1t wouldn't be one of them.

Lower numbers participating at the grassroots would be the most important IMO.

Jimoslimos

BattleCorp wrote: »

Darts, someone tall is closer to the dart board and therefore has a marginal advantage.

Snooker, a tall person can reach more shots without stretching or resorting to the rest.

These are only fractional advantages but in sport that can make all the difference.

A couple of cms won't make much difference over 6ft.

Top snooker players rarely need to use the rest or stretch because their skill level means they don't end up in those positions. Any height advantage is minimal unless you're playing a small child.

BattleCorp

Jimoslimos wrote: »

There's a number of reasons, but that sort of amateur psychology bullsh1t wouldn't be one of them.

Lower numbers participating at the grassroots would be the most important IMO.

You can only play against what is in front of you.

You can't blame men for being better at most sports because most women aren't interested. There are a significant number of top class female athletes and not many of them come close to beating men when they are competing against each other.

maudgonner

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Although what Moore said isn't probably politically correct an he'd have been better of to stay quiet he is right.There is no doubt female tennis players benefit from their connection to the mens game .

Tennis is the most high profile female sport by far but I'd imagine if the biggest events of the year were not played alongside the men the status of the womens game would diminish significantly.

Seeing as the mens game generates more money and ticket prices for the mens grand slam finals are higher which indicates that the organizers consider them more important , it's a bit odd that the male players don't get more money for their efforts .

I don't particularly care about the women being paid proportionally more for grand slam events but it's just strange that there never seem to be any calls for equality when inequality benefits women.

There's definitely truth in that. But I believe that when the prize money was equalised the reason give was that it was to kick-start a move towards making the women's game more equal in stature to the men's.

That's obviously something that doesn't happen overnight and as was mentioned upthread there is a bit of chicken and egg to it - if women's championships are always perceived as inferior then they will never get as big a market share. So they will have smaller viewing figures and be treated as inferior. But if the tennis governing bodies start to treat them more equally it can help break that cycle.

Tennis is one sport where there is definitely potential to change the imbalance. Many people like to watch the women's games because they don't have as much power, so it becomes less about brute force serves (and nothing is more boring than a game that's just ace after ace). The players have similar levels of public profile.

Is it fair? Maybe not. But it's not going to be fair either way.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jimoslimos wrote: »

There's a number of reasons, but that sort of amateur psychology bullsh1t wouldn't be one of them.

Lower numbers participating at the grassroots would be the most important IMO.

Maybe but I would say is a certain truth to it and studies say that men tend to be naturally more competitive than women.

There should be no real reason more women wouldn't be able to compete at a level close to men in a sport like darts or snooker.

razorblunt

Should men's tennis have a bigger prize pot than women's absolutely. Longer games for one, increased viewing figures and associated incomings too should mean they warrant a bigger cut of the pie.

I've said before though, I'd love to see a mixed gender golf tournament, they could even trial it at one of the Pro-Am events like the Dunhill Links,

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

There's definitely truth in that. But I believe that when the prize money was equalised the reason give was that it was to kick-start a move towards making the women's game more equal in stature to the men's.

That's obviously something that doesn't happen overnight and as was mentioned upthread there is a bit of chicken and egg to it - if women's championships are always perceived as inferior then they will never get as big a market share. So they will have smaller viewing figures and be treated as inferior. But if the tennis governing bodies start to treat them more equally it can help break that cycle.

Tennis is one sport where there is definitely potential to change the imbalance. Many people like to watch the women's games because they don't have as much power, so it becomes less about brute force serves (and nothing is more boring than a game that's just ace after ace). The players have similar levels of public profile.

Is it fair? Maybe not. But it's not going to be fair either way.

The women's 100m world record has been the same since the 80s, set by someone who died at a young age having retired when it was announced random testing would be introduced. In almost 30 years no woman has matched her. There are dozens (likely hundreds) of footballers in their early 20s who could beat that record. But it's all about participation.

As for tennis, IMO the women's game has gotten extremely boring, it's not as powerful as the men's game yet they seem to be focusing far more on power the last while.