nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.