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

maudgonner

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?
Again, boxing has fight nights, top of the bill gets the most money because they get the numbers in. Until very recently Heavyweights tended to have a massive advantage in earnings potential because that's what people wanted to watch.
If one wants to claim it's down to promotion then the women need their fed to do more promotion. And even then I'll bet it won't be enough.
While there's segregation there's different earnings potential. Get rid of segregation and women's earning potential in the sports where they can currently make money will disappear.

"Fair" doesn't mean "equal no matter what".

I agree fair doesn't mean equal no matter what. I also reckon that prize money doesn't have to be given out on a basis of 'whoever brings in more viewing figures gets the biggest slice of the pie'.

It can be used to boost popularity of the sport in a certain demographic or sector. It can be used to send a political message. And that's what the ATP/WTA did when they equalised prize money. Do you think they did it to be nice to the women players? Of course not.

Fair? No. And yes. Is anything ever entirely fair?

PowerToWait

I'll watch women's athletics all day. The men can stay at home.

DEFTLEFTHAND

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.

I like their pro golf also, even with the shorter yardage they play. Tidy little players around the green.

Look out for the Irish Maguire twins in the coming years, they've already enjoyed great success in the ladies amateur game.

[Deleted User]

maudgonner wrote: »

I agree fair doesn't mean equal no matter what. I also reckon that prize money doesn't have to be given out on a basis of 'whoever brings in more viewing figures gets the biggest slice of the pie'.

What should it be based on? Whenever there's been professional sports the best (those who got people in to watch) got paid more than the rest. It's fair as far as I can see.

It can be used to boost popularity of the sport in a certain demographic or sector. It can be used to send a political message. And that's what the ATP/WTA did when they equalised prize money. Do you think they did it to be nice to the women players? Of course not.

Fair? No. And yes. Is anything ever entirely fair?

What difference did equalising the pay make? It's been 10 years since the Slams were all equal so the first crop of women who can compete with the men should be coming through any day now. It was a cynical "Look how right-on we are!" move.

[Deleted User]

maudgonner wrote: »

I agree fair doesn't mean equal no matter what. I also reckon that prize money doesn't have to be given out on a basis of 'whoever brings in more viewing figures gets the biggest slice of the pie'.

It can be used to boost popularity of the sport in a certain demographic or sector. It can be used to send a political message. And that's what the ATP/WTA did when they equalised prize money. Do you think they did it to be nice to the women players? Of course not.

Fair? No. And yes. Is anything ever entirely fair?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that most professional sports bodies are interested in anything other than cold hard cash. Recent scandals surrounding FIFA, UEFA, the IOC, IAAF etc. etc. show that the main raison d'etre for such organisations appears to be making dinero for their owners or those involved in their operation. If it paid them more to have women paid equally they would do that tomorrow....they are as unconcerned about male equality as they are about female equality...in professional sport it simply comes down to dollars.

On a separate point we receive an annual lecture about the low profile given to women's GAA compared to the men's version. Camogie actually has its own operating structure outside the GAA and even though they charge next to nothing (in comparison to the 80 quid a ticket men's final) to get into the women's All Ireland Final they get about 1/4 of the crowd. The game is also covered free to air on national tv like the men's. The slightly strange lecture we receive tends towards why there are not bigger crowds and the lack of respect. Women of course who make up 50% of the population can attend at their leisure yet it is men who are expected to attend to make things "equal".

DEFTLEFTHAND

PowerToWait wrote: »

I'll watch women's athletics all day. The men can stay at home.

In fairness watching a man run 100 metres in under 10 seconds is exhilarating.

tritium

maudgonner wrote: »

Well you can look at it from the other point of view - women who climb to the peak of their sport, achieve the maximum that they can, should be equally rewarded as the men who achieve the same feats.

Is it the player's fault that the women's game receives lower viewing figures? Or is is due to less promotion, unfavourable scheduling and a legacy of less participation of women in sport generally?

I'm not saying Djokovic doesn't have a point, but you can argue it both ways.

But I think we can all agree that no matter who gets paid what, Raymond Moore is a complete gobdaw, right?

By that standard shouldn't people at the top of all sports be paid the same also? International badminton players getting a share of the pie from more popular sports for example?

kneemos

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the dominant darts player over the last 20 years is only 5'8".

And that's around the waist.

maudgonner

babaracus wrote: »

You seem to be under the misapprehension that most professional sports bodies are interested in anything other than cold hard cash. Recent scandals surrounding FIFA, UEFA, the IOC, IAAF etc. etc. show that the main raison d'etre for such organisations appears to be making dinero for their owners or those involved in their operation. If it paid them more to have women paid equally they would do that tomorrow....they are as unconcerned about male equality as they are about female equality...in professional sport it simply comes down to dollars.

I'm under no misapprehension at all. Didn't I just say that one of the reasons prize money can be allocated is to make a political point?
Equalisation of prize money happened because it was lobbied hard for, by Billie Jean King notably. Of course part of the reason the authorities agreed to the proposal was because they were pressured to do so, and it gained them political correctness brownie points to do it.

They're also doing it to increase market share - if they can boost the profitability of women's tennis and increase audience share they make more money. One of the ways you do that is to indicate that the women's game is taken seriously...by giving equal prize money.

newport2

Don't know why anyone is paying much attention to this. Idiot said something stupid about a sport where both men and women at the top both earn 10's of millions.

I'd save my concern for most other sports where there is real inequality between men and women which cannot but feed back into the interest shown to it and how it's promoted, which is on a cycle as others have said, ie less money -> less interest, less interest -> less money.

maudgonner

Deleted User wrote: »

What difference did equalising the pay make? It's been 10 years since the Slams were all equal so the first crop of women who can compete with the men should be coming through any day now. It was a cynical "Look how right-on we are!" move.

US Open Womens final sold out more quickly than the mens final last year. Viewing figures were also greater.

Undoubtedly that's partly due to Serena Williams' star power. But why is Serena Williams seen as being as big a star as any of the guys?...

Wibbs

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?

Sorry S, I normally agree with you, but this IMH is dubious with daft spells. I have no issue with men and women and boys and girls at school playing against each other. I'd support it. However at the top levels and professionally across the vast majority of sports, records and times and results are massively gender skewed towards men. Hey, I've no problem if a woman makes the requirements for heavyweight boxing, but I'll lay any bets now she'll be kissing canvas in the first round. In tennis, line up the best against each other and again I'll lay bets the men will win across the board. Soccer? Was it the US women's olympic team who played against some junior boys/mens team and got slaughtered? Their olympic ice hockey team certainly played against a boys school team and got hammered.

There would be sports where the gap is much narrower, even nonexistent, like as you say shooting, archery would be another and yep mixed would be good there, but for the majority of sports no amount of "gender doesn't matter" right onism will trump reality.

gramar

maudgonner wrote: »

US Open Womens final sold out more quickly than the mens final last year. Viewing figures were also greater.

Undoubtedly that's partly due to Serena Williams' star power. But why is Serena Williams seen as being as big a star as any of the guys?...

I think it's because she's as close to a man as you can find in women's tennis.

pickarooney

tritium wrote: »

By that standard shouldn't people at the top of all sports be paid the same also? International badminton players getting a share of the pie from more popular sports for example?

Badminton is the second most popular sport in the world in terms of player numbers.

Over a billion people watch Olympic matches.

[Deleted User]

maudgonner wrote: »

US Open Womens final sold out more quickly than the mens final last year. Viewing figures were also greater.

Undoubtedly that's partly due to Serena Williams' star power. But why is Serena Williams seen as being as big a star as any of the guys?...

First time ever or has it been regular?
Serena makes a bit difference and Djokovic makes the opposite difference on the men's side.

Maguined

maudgonner wrote: »

US Open Womens final sold out more quickly than the mens final last year. Viewing figures were also greater.

Undoubtedly that's partly due to Serena Williams' star power. But why is Serena Williams seen as being as big a star as any of the guys?...

She has the star factor. She has been extremely successful and dominant in her sport as well as breaking the image of tennis as being an upper class game considering the sisters started off playing in Compton one of the most notorious areas of California so they have the rags to riches story that fans like. She also has a very aggressive style which is something casual fans can appreciate quickly so she is a great superstar in the sport.

kneemos

pickarooney wrote: »

Badminton is the second most popular sport in the world in terms of player numbers.

Over a billion people watch Olympic matches.

Yet feck all money involved I'll bet?

Christy42

Wibbs wrote: »

There would be sports where the gap is much narrower, even nonexistent, like as you say shooting, archery would be another and yep mixed would be good there, but for the majority of sports no amount of "gender doesn't matter" right onism will trump reality.

Archery requires a good deal of strength. Especially as the outdoor 70m competitions are considered more important. Higher strength bows are harder to pull back but higher strength bows = flatter trajectory = higher scores.

Take a look at the top scores for the genders sometime. The gap is certainly closer than in say rugby or tennis as the top women would certainly in the main group at the world championships but it would kill their medal hopes. If you ignore Korean women then there would be very few women who could pass as a major international male archer in terms of scores.

IMO the difference is big enough that it would seriously hurt female participation in the sport.

Iang87

maudgonner wrote: »

US Open Womens final sold out more quickly than the mens final last year. Viewing figures were also greater.

Undoubtedly that's partly due to Serena Williams' star power. But why is Serena Williams seen as being as big a star as any of the guys?...

Firstly she wasnt in the final so by the time the final rolled around the tickets prices had plummeted and you couldn't give them away. It was also a historical event when they went on sale she was on for the first to win all 4 grand slams in a season. She got beat in the semi.

I don't see any argument that can justify equal pay. Sport is based on merit its why the best of the best get paid accordingly. This issue needs to be looked at as 2 separate sports for me. Mens Tennis versus Womens Tennis. They dont compete against one another so why is the money split

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

Sorry S, I normally agree with you, but this IMH is dubious with daft spells. I have no issue with men and women and boys and girls at school playing against each other. I'd support it. However at the top levels and professionally across the vast majority of sports, records and times and results are massively gender skewed towards men. Hey, I've no problem if a woman makes the requirements for heavyweight boxing, but I'll lay any bets now she'll be kissing canvas in the first round. In tennis, line up the best against each other and again I'll lay bets the men will win across the board. Soccer? Was it the US women's olympic team who played against some junior boys/mens team and got slaughtered? Their olympic ice hockey team certainly played against a boys school team and got hammered.

There would be sports where the gap is much narrower, even nonexistent, like as you say shooting, archery would be another and yep mixed would be good there, but for the majority of sports no amount of "gender doesn't matter" right onism will trump reality.

That's why I brought up chess. Totally cerebral activity and yet the top rankings are all men. The men are just better in competitive environments it seems

Maximus Alexander

seamus wrote: »

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?

It will be a deciding factor in almost every sport based on athleticism. Maybe it wouldn't matter in... snooker or darts or something? In all the sports you mentioned it won't be 'more men' at the top level, it will be exclusively men.

I actually agree with the last sentence. If a woman is good enough to play with the men then she shouldn't be prohibited from doing so. But at the elite level, that's simply never going to happen. Doing away with segregated sports entirely would inevitably mean an end to female elite athletes, which I'm pretty sure nobody wants to see?

osarusan

To be honest, that guy's comment could apply to all but the top 4 or 6 in men's tennis too.

Christy42

osarusan wrote: »

To be honest, that guy's comment could apply to all but the top 4 or 6 in men's tennis too.

Pretty sure they get less than Serena (given they won't finish as high up in the tournament). Though you are right in that the total prize pool is bigger because of it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It will be a deciding factor in almost every sport based on athleticism. Maybe it wouldn't matter in... snooker or darts or something? In all the sports you mentioned it won't be 'more men' at the top level, it will be exclusively men.

I actually agree with the last sentence. If a woman is good enough to play with the men then she shouldn't be prohibited from doing so. But at the elite level, that's simply never going to happen. Doing away with segregated sports entirely would inevitably mean an end to female elite athletes, which I'm pretty sure nobody wants to see?

Actually in Snooker, Darts and Golf female players have been permitted to play in men's tournaments in the past.

With Darts the PDC's tour school is open to women players each January. To date none have ever won a tourcard. Russian player Anna Dobromyslova was given a card by the PDC in 2009 but failed to make any impact on the rankings. After a few seasons she returned to the BDO womens division.

In golf Anika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie have both received invites to men's tournaments in the past. Both finishing bottom of the field on each occasion after the opening two rounds before the cut.

In snooker Rhian Evan's made an attempt to qualify for the men's world championship last year but was defeated in the opening round.

gramar

Serena strikes a blow for equality in women's tennis...

Delirium wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ajlobster/status/712261644114599938

Christy42

gramar wrote: »

Serena strikes a blow for equality in women's tennis...

Can't argue with that really.

Was thinking about this and gymnastics came to mind. Definitely not an expert on the sport but as far as I am aware the men and women are marked differently (men more focused on strength, women flexibility). So it seems likely a guy would seriously struggle to compete in the women's game for reasons of biology (and vice versa). Nothing much to it except it is interesting to find a sport women have the edge in (even if they are past it by about 20 in that sport)

newport2

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

In golf Anika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie have both received invites to men's tournaments in the past. Both finishing bottom of the field on each occasion after the opening two rounds before the cut.
.

Actually Michelle Wie dropped 2 shots in the last two holes in the men's Casio World Open to miss the cut by a single shot. She was a teenager and that was nerves, not ability. She played well enough to make the cut, but under more pressure that the men as she would have been the first ever to do it, hence faltered the last 2 holes. That said, she's 6'2" and stronger than most men. But I agree, over a long period she wouldn't cut it. A large part of the downfall in her form was put down to her trying to hit the ball as far as the men, ruining her rythym and in time, her confidence.

I think in snooker and darts the reason is women at a young age don't play them nearly as much as men do. If they did I expect they'd be able to compete.

Chain Smoker

I thought the argument for men having higher prize money in tennis, outside of marketability and all that, is that the games are typically far longer endurance tests. The lower ranked WTA players are able to take part in more competitions and do doubles as well whereas pretty much any ATP player of any significance at all has to focus exclusively on singles or take a huge hit to potential earnings by becoming a doubles player primarily.

Now, what's Mr World Number 1 grumbling about it for, I haven't a notion. His argument wasn't the most nuanced either.

Fairly sure there have been patches of time where women's tennis has been almost as marketable as mens though. It's just in the last ten years or so it's basically been a case of whether Serena's injured or not. In terms of building up a sport, having one godly figure that destroys everyone and a bunch of wildly inconsistent people below them like Sharapova isn't going to stir up much interest.
It would be like the Men's side for the past ten years if Nadal was the only one of the big four that was around.

Maguined

Chain Smoker wrote: »

I thought the argument for men having higher prize money in tennis, outside of marketability and all that, is that the games are typically far longer endurance tests. The lower ranked WTA players are able to take part in more competitions and do doubles as well whereas pretty much any ATP player of any significance at all has to focus exclusively on singles or take a huge hit to potential earnings by becoming a doubles player primarily.

Now, what's Mr World Number 1 grumbling about it for, I haven't a notion. His argument wasn't the most nuanced either.

Fairly sure there have been patches of time where women's tennis has been almost as marketable as mens though. It's just in the last ten years or so it's basically been a case of whether Serena's injured or not. In terms of building up a sport, having one godly figure that destroys everyone and a bunch of wildly inconsistent people below them like Sharapova isn't going to stir up much interest.
It would be like the Men's side for the past ten years if Nadal was the only one of the big four that was around.

The longer sets was never portrayed as a reason the men got paid more. The set difference is just a hangover from sexist thinking that women were more fragile then men in the past so should play less. The womens association could up their sets to 5 if they wanted or the mens association could reduce theirs to 3 if they wanted but neither would likely have a significant impact on viewer number.

Mens tournaments just had more public support historically. More interest, more fans, more sponsorship all resulted in more money.

Chain Smoker

Maguined wrote: »

The longer sets was never portrayed as a reason the men got paid more. The set difference is just a hangover from sexist thinking that women were more fragile then men in the past so should play less. The womens association could up their sets to 5 if they wanted or the mens association could reduce theirs to 3 if they wanted but neither would likely have a significant impact on viewer number.

Mens tournaments just had more public support historically. More interest, more fans, more sponsorship all resulted in more money.

I didn't say portrayed as a reason in the past, I mean it's the reason most often brought up now.

RE: not having an impact on viewing numbers, I'd be fairly confident that doubling the average length of a match would have a hit to the viewership. One of the biggest competitive advantages women's tennis has as a television product is that you can guess when it's going to end a hell of a lot more accurately.
Has there been a movement to bring grand slam women's matches up to five sets, actually? There's so many interests opposed to it that it'd never happen now (and why on earth would the players demand it if they have equal pay anyway) but I'd be curious to dig up some articles on it.