PDA

View Full Version : Women's Tennis


T.C.
21-03-2016, 08:43 AM
I see that the issue of professional women tennis prize money is in the news again.

I have never understood how they justify equal 'pay' when they play fewer games and attract fewer spectators.

In fact generally in women's sport if they want to be treated the same as men it seems logical that they should compete with men on equal terms.

WorthingEagle
21-03-2016, 08:52 AM
Yep, always row upon row of empty seats at WTA-only events. It's like Conference North players demanding equal pay with the Premier League.

Ardent Eagle Forever
21-03-2016, 12:35 PM
Five sets for equal pay.

Windsor_Eagle
21-03-2016, 12:59 PM
Five sets for equal pay.

That is my take on it too. One reason that women's tennis isn't better followed is that it doesn't test athleticism and mental prowess as much as the men's game does over 5 sets. That in itself leads to a very, very varied level of quality required to win major tournaments comparative to the men's game and I think that is factored into the interest is subsequently generates.

The physical toll to battle over 5 sets compared to three is exceptional and why that should factor into the value of the prize at stake.

Golf Boy
21-03-2016, 01:08 PM
Nothing to do with how many sets are played. You should get what people are willing to pay. It's an unfortunate fact that most people want to see men play sport.

kolinkins
21-03-2016, 01:28 PM
Five sets for equal pay.

So men who win in 3 sets should paid less than those who in in 5?

Do women prepare themselves less than men do? Are tickets for women's matches at Wimbledon less costly than men's?

lee_cpfc
21-03-2016, 01:37 PM
Disgraceful.

Next they will be allowed to vote.

SOUTHGATE EAGLE
21-03-2016, 01:49 PM
That is my take on it too. One reason that women's tennis isn't better followed is that it doesn't test athleticism and mental prowess as much as the men's game does over 5 sets. That in itself leads to a very, very varied level of quality required to win major tournaments comparative to the men's game and I think that is factored into the interest is subsequently generates.

The physical toll to battle over 5 sets compared to three is exceptional and why that should factor into the value of the prize at stake.

It's only in the four slam tournaments that five sets are played in the men's.

I also enjoy the women's matches more than the men's since the emotional drama is higher ( and, I admit, the skirts hemline ) but I do agree they are 'worth' less to the sport financially so shouldn't get parity for P.C.'s sake.

saxoneagle
21-03-2016, 01:53 PM
What the head of the Indian Wells tournament said was completely out of order, in the way he said it, but there is actually a much deeper point to his comments. Sponsorship for women's tennis is not increasing anywhere near as fast as in the men's game, yet their earnings are growing faster. Tickets for ATP tours are more than WTA, yet crowds are bigger at ATP tours. I watch a fair bit of tennis on TV, and you rarely see a large crowd at WTA events.

And Serena can talk about her U.S. Open final selling out quicker than the men's final... But again she's misplaced. Both finals sold out before the tournament started so fans wouldn't have know who they were going to see. Maybe they were taking a punt at seeing Serena get the slam, maybe they wanted to see a final but not pay men's final prices (all 4 GS have cheaper tix for women's SF and F day than the men's equivalent).

Not to mention, every male GS winner last year spent a lot longer on court than their female equivalent. Yet earned the same. How is that "equal pay"? Djokovic came out and said similar this morning. It's the one sport where women get more per minute competing than men, yet the women still complain about lacking equality!

And yes, Nav - generally a man winning in straight sets spends longer on court than a woman winning in three. Many men's sets take almost an hour. Women win entire matches in less! I did an analysis of this last year after the U.S. Open and Djokovic had spent about 25% more time on court at GS events than Serena. Even if they trained exactly the same (they generally don't, but we'll assume they do), Djokovic did more work for the same money. Anyone who thinks that is fair, regardless of limited sponsorship and lower ticket prices, is making up some sexism argument which actually is the opposite.

maestro
21-03-2016, 01:53 PM
Should women footballers get paid the same as men?

Of course not

If they want the same money as men let them compete against men, its a non contact sport.

Golf Boy
21-03-2016, 02:01 PM
Bob Crow must have negotiated the deal for the WTA. And they are still moaning.

Pint of Speroni
21-03-2016, 02:04 PM
Not even sure where to start with this thread to be honest

Random*
21-03-2016, 02:08 PM
And yes, Nav - generally a man winning in straight sets spends longer on court than a woman winning in three. Many men's sets take almost an hour. Women win entire matches in less! I did an analysis of this last year after the U.S. Open and Djokovic had spent about 25% more time on court at GS events than Serena. Even if they trained exactly the same (they generally don't, but we'll assume they do), Djokovic did more work for the same money. Anyone who thinks that is fair, regardless of limited sponsorship and lower ticket prices, is making up some sexism argument which actually is the opposite.

Time on court is a very small part of it.

Do they spend less time training? Do they spend less time travelling?

maestro
21-03-2016, 02:10 PM
Time on court is a very small part of it.

Do they spend less time training? Do they spend less time travelling?

The reason they get paid less is because its not the Pinnacle of the sport and less people want to watch it.

Wolfnipplechips
21-03-2016, 02:21 PM
They all get paid too much anyway once they reach that level.

It made me cross this morning listening to Djokavic actually say they should get more.

Windsor_Eagle
21-03-2016, 02:24 PM
There's been a lot of noise about this in the past because, like perhaps the music industry and acting, there is a clear male / female equivalent in a high profile profession that there is directly comparability. There aren't many other sports (if any) I can think of where the men and women's game is held is similar equality in terms of fame and exposure etc. So on one hand in the interests of equality more generically in society I can see arguments to hold this up as a case in point over pay. It is an example so to speak. Certainly the film industry to name one should be all over this in the same way as I cannot see a single valid argument for why males are paid higher than females in acting roles.

However, in terms of a sport like tennis there is quite significant variation in terms of many aspects of the game. Saxon has done a pretty good job of highlighting them already and certainly in best of three tournaments I feel that equal pay is about right (although men do still have more court time but that is by the by), but a best of 5 approach is considerably more work for the same money. Not to mention all of the sponsorship and money-generation from ATP vs WTA.

One other aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet relates to health and safety pay too. In the mens game they are not permitted match breaks due to soaring temperatures over 5 sets, but women are permitted (I think) 90 minutes worth of a break for their best of 3 in the same conditions. Things like that need to be altered.

Rather than bringing female pay down, I think the same rules of engagement should apply across the ATP and WTA.

SOUTHGATE EAGLE
21-03-2016, 02:29 PM
Time on court is a very small part of it.

Do they spend less time training? Do they spend less time travelling?

No one denies the personal commitment the women make to the sport that you mention ( or the fact that they can't become parents while still playing like Murray or Djokovic ) but the financial side of the game is and only can be about money.

I personally prefer watching WTA to ATP but I am in a distinct minority. Even women don't support the WTA over ATP tennis. A poll a few years back showed 99% of women would rather watch the men. So WTA is not getting the same gender support women offer, say, the issue of equal pay in the workplace ( which is a different argument but, by many metrics, they actually already do ) due to the fact that women recognise the WTA 'product' is inferior. I have no problem with women being paid the same as men as a P.C. exercise and the game can afford it, but I see the financial argument as to why such equality is not earned. The sad reality is that, without the ATP tour, tennis as a professional sport would not be sustainable.

WLYWLYAWYPWF
21-03-2016, 02:36 PM
Should women footballers get paid the same as men?

Of course not

If they want the same money as men let them compete against men, its a non contact sport.

This is how I see it. Gender should be irrelevant. The prize money should reflect the standard of the player. In any workplace you can't expect to earn as much as people who are better at the job or work longer hours.

The reality is if there was a mixed tennis circuit the top women would be also rans scraping around the circuit for a living like a lot of men who are much better than them at tennis currently do.

Women can't have it both ways. I fully agree they should earn as much as men where they can perform equally but you can't expect the same pay when those standards aren't met.

pardew's shorts
21-03-2016, 04:11 PM
Prize money is only equal when both men and women feature at the same events (one of many reasons why you can't compare, for example, men's and women's football).

At such events, the prize money is awarded for achieving the same thing - winning x number of matches to win the tournament. The length of the matches is irrelevant - you are rewarding the achievement, not the time it takes (besides which, how do you then differentiate between a long three-set women's match and a men's match where a player has rolled over his opponent in straight sets?). Plus, prize money reflects the efforts taken by players to win events - efforts that don't begin and end on court; women don't train less than their male counterparts. They have to work exactly the same, off the court, harder, even, as the wider world is still skewed against women (plus, of course, if a woman has a baby, she's out of the game for two or three years, minimum; when the big four men have had kids, they have been back on court within weeks).

Furthermore, are you therefore saying that Mo Farah should be paid significantly more for his wins than Usain Bolt (when they occur at the same event?)

Plus, women have long said they would be happy to play five sets at Slams, but it is never considered as the organisers wouldn't be able to make the schedules work.

As for men bringing more money and revenue into tournaments, sponsorship agreements and TV deals are struck based on an entire tournament.

There is, for instance, more interest in Britain in the men's side at Wimbledon, but preferences vary dramatically by country and tournament and players of interest. If Djokovic thinks he deserves a bigger slice than women from, say, the Australian Open, would he be happy to take a smaller slice from Wimbledon than Murray, who patently, given it's his home Slam, generates more in revenue and interest?

There are too many variables to make it work, and ultimately the number of events where men and women play together, is tiny. At individual WTA or ATP events, organisers and players are welcome to split revenue as they see fit, as players are welcome to earn as much or as little as they like from sponsorship deals.

Men's tennis is more popular than women's, but there are a myriad of reasons for that, and skewing the balance further in the favour of men will only widen the gap. If you market something as a lesser product, you will diminish it even further in the eyes of the masses.

It is also worth considering the insane era of men's tennis in which we live. It's more than likely that in five years, men's tennis will go through a period of distinct averageness, at which time women's tennis may become the more popular. As good as Sampras was, a lot of the ace, ace, ace tennis in his era was deadly dull.

Windsor_Eagle
21-03-2016, 04:15 PM
A lot of fair points there PS. The only area that I disagree on really is the notion that the effort to win the slams for the women is equal to the effort taken to win it by the men. Even if we put aside the time on court as a variable, we are talking about efforts of body and mind that are far more gruelling on the whole and this is reflected in the variety of slams winners comparatively between the WTA and ATP.

That being said, you do raise some valid arguments why equal pay also makes sense.

PauLo
21-03-2016, 04:23 PM
The reason they get paid less is because its not the Pinnacle of the sport and less people want to watch it.

I think that's a rather simplistic, and really quite insulting, view point to take.

Golf Boy
21-03-2016, 04:38 PM
Why don't the women organise seperate events and get their own sponsors and tv deals. Then they can get what they think they are worth ( if they aren't happy with the current situation ).

3 Beers at HT
21-03-2016, 05:23 PM
The current World T20 Championship being played in India has the Women playing in the afternoon and the Men in the evening, at the same venues, on the same pitches. Same TV contract, same advertising etc.

Mens Prize Fund: $5.6m

Womens Prize Fund: $400,000.

saxoneagle
21-03-2016, 07:04 PM
Time on court is a very small part of it.

Do they spend less time training? Do they spend less time travelling?

Did you miss the bit where I said that? :clown:

saxoneagle
21-03-2016, 07:10 PM
Prize money is only equal when both men and women feature at the same events (one of many reasons why you can't compare, for example, men's and women's football).

At such events, the prize money is awarded for achieving the same thing - winning x number of matches to win the tournament. The length of the matches is irrelevant - you are rewarding the achievement, not the time it takes (besides which, how do you then differentiate between a long three-set women's match and a men's match where a player has rolled over his opponent in straight sets?). Plus, prize money reflects the efforts taken by players to win events - efforts that don't begin and end on court; women don't train less than their male counterparts. They have to work exactly the same, off the court, harder, even, as the wider world is still skewed against women (plus, of course, if a woman has a baby, she's out of the game for two or three years, minimum; when the big four men have had kids, they have been back on court within weeks).

Furthermore, are you therefore saying that Mo Farah should be paid significantly more for his wins than Usain Bolt (when they occur at the same event?)

Plus, women have long said they would be happy to play five sets at Slams, but it is never considered as the organisers wouldn't be able to make the schedules work.

As for men bringing more money and revenue into tournaments, sponsorship agreements and TV deals are struck based on an entire tournament.

There is, for instance, more interest in Britain in the men's side at Wimbledon, but preferences vary dramatically by country and tournament and players of interest. If Djokovic thinks he deserves a bigger slice than women from, say, the Australian Open, would he be happy to take a smaller slice from Wimbledon than Murray, who patently, given it's his home Slam, generates more in revenue and interest?

There are too many variables to make it work, and ultimately the number of events where men and women play together, is tiny. At individual WTA or ATP events, organisers and players are welcome to split revenue as they see fit, as players are welcome to earn as much or as little as they like from sponsorship deals.

Men's tennis is more popular than women's, but there are a myriad of reasons for that, and skewing the balance further in the favour of men will only widen the gap. If you market something as a lesser product, you will diminish it even further in the eyes of the masses.

It is also worth considering the insane era of men's tennis in which we live. It's more than likely that in five years, men's tennis will go through a period of distinct averageness, at which time women's tennis may become the more popular. As good as Sampras was, a lot of the ace, ace, ace tennis in his era was deadly dull.

Wimbledon sold out through generations of shit British tennis players. And it will sell out when Murray retires and we have shit players again. You'd have had a better argument if you'd mentioned American players at the U.S.!

The problem is, every time this comes up, the worst offender and the people who don't help this problem get almost ignored - the WTA. They spent so long not promoting the women's game and, now they are, they're so far behind the ATP they'll spend at least a generation playing catchup to get to where they were a decade ago!

saxoneagle
21-03-2016, 07:12 PM
The current World T20 Championship being played in India has the Women playing in the afternoon and the Men in the evening, at the same venues, on the same pitches. Same TV contract, same advertising etc.

Mens Prize Fund: $5.6m

Womens Prize Fund: $400,000.

Aye, and that's wrong. Both sides play 40 overs, around 3 hours.

But why do you think they put the India v Pakistan women's match on directly before the men's one? To increase the crowd and generate interest - something the WTA aren't very smart at doing!

saxoneagle
21-03-2016, 07:13 PM
Why don't the women organise seperate events and get their own sponsors and tv deals. Then they can get what they think they are worth ( if they aren't happy with the current situation ).

They do. It's the WTA Tour. Most events are separate and prize money on these is quite a bit different.

It's only on the rare occasion that the tours overlap is the prize money the same.

Ardent Eagle Forever
23-03-2016, 07:54 AM
So men who win in 3 sets should paid less than those who in in 5?

By that argument, a woman who wins in two sets, should then get a pay cut.

If a tournament is a 5 set tournament for men and 3 for women, then for equal pay, the women's game should be elevated to 5 sets.

Not all games finish in 5 anyway.

Taking sex away from the issue, do you agree it's right for a colleague who does the same work as you, should get the same pay as you because he does three days work and you do five?

Because this is the issue at hand.


[/QUOTE]Do women prepare themselves less than men do? Are tickets for women's matches at Wimbledon less costly than men's?[/QUOTE]

I should hope that all players male and female put maximum effort into preparation for a game. Otherwise they are cheating themselves and the paying public.

Wimbledon is a prestigious tournament, perhaps the most prestigious in the world. Therefore when many people buy tickets, they are thankful that they have got tickets for the tournament and are happy so see either sex play.

Given the climatic conditions at Wimbledon in any given year, the likelihood is that on a Women's play day they are just as likely to see men play and vice versa. This would be due to overrunning games or rescheduled games.

My wife gets the option to buy 2 centre court tickets a year. If I offered you those tickets at cost price, you wouldn't care whether it was a male or female day. You be chuffed that you've got hold of a pair of centre court tickets.

The price at Wimbledon is the same every day regardless of sex.

Ardent Eagle Forever
23-03-2016, 07:56 AM
The current World T20 Championship being played in India has the Women playing in the afternoon and the Men in the evening, at the same venues, on the same pitches. Same TV contract, same advertising etc.

Mens Prize Fund: $5.6m

Womens Prize Fund: $400,000.

Probably reflected by the lack of crowds for the women's game and lack of sponsorship.

I like the women's game and watch a fair bit of it.

kolinkins
23-03-2016, 08:24 AM
By that argument, a woman who wins in two sets, should then get a pay cut.

If a tournament is a 5 set tournament for men and 3 for women, then for equal pay, the women's game should be elevated to 5 sets.

Not all games finish in 5 anyway.

Taking sex away from the issue, do you agree it's right for a colleague who does the same work as you, should get the same pay as you because he does three days work and you do five?

Because this is the issue at hand.

If my colleague is choosing to work part time hours then of course the pay should be less. If my colleague want to work full time, is capable of doing so and the company can afford it but isn't letting her then she should get the same as me.

Why does it bother blokes if a woman gets paid the same as another bloke anyway?

kolinkins
23-03-2016, 08:27 AM
There's been a lot of noise about this in the past because, like perhaps the music industry and acting, there is a clear male / female equivalent in a high profile profession that there is directly comparability. There aren't many other sports (if any) I can think of where the men and women's game is held is similar equality in terms of fame and exposure etc. So on one hand in the interests of equality more generically in society I can see arguments to hold this up as a case in point over pay. It is an example so to speak. Certainly the film industry to name one should be all over this in the same way as I cannot see a single valid argument for why males are paid higher than females in acting roles.

However, in terms of a sport like tennis there is quite significant variation in terms of many aspects of the game. Saxon has done a pretty good job of highlighting them already and certainly in best of three tournaments I feel that equal pay is about right (although men do still have more court time but that is by the by), but a best of 5 approach is considerably more work for the same money. Not to mention all of the sponsorship and money-generation from ATP vs WTA.

One other aspect that hasn't been mentioned yet relates to health and safety pay too. In the mens game they are not permitted match breaks due to soaring temperatures over 5 sets, but women are permitted (I think) 90 minutes worth of a break for their best of 3 in the same conditions. Things like that need to be altered.

Rather than bringing female pay down, I think the same rules of engagement should apply across the ATP and WTA.


If I'm not mistaken Windsor, you have a son and a daughter.

Say they are both outstanding at tennis as they grow. They play against each other, winning about 50:50. Then, comes a time when bodies change and the boy gets stronger naturally. At this point, how will you explain to your daughter that regardless of her ability, her sex means that she will earn less than her brother?

Adlerhorst
23-03-2016, 08:38 AM
The whole thing is a mess. The men's game generates far more money than the women's game. But the issue if you split that up so even at joint events the WTA and the ATP sell rights separately and the men get paid more, then inevitably some of the men will turn around and say why the hell are you paying $x in prize money to that dude I beat in round 1, people came to see me.

Basically all the revenues are generated by interest in the stars, in the same way Palace get paid a fortune in TV money which if they had to negotiate on their own they would make so much less it is frightening (people are paying to see the wankers, other wankers and the other other wankers). But ultimately if you pay all the coin to those who generate it you end up with just exhibition matches as no one else can afford to play the game as they cannot make a living out of it as Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are getting all the money.

In short it's a mess. There is no sensible justification why women should be paid the same as men when they play a different game. but at the same time if you go down the reward who generates the revenue properly you could destroy the game (and make Djokovic very very rich indeed).

Big Blue Eagle
23-03-2016, 08:47 AM
To be fair, the line taken by Murray an Djokovic on the men's side is that not enough money flows down to the lower ranked players making it almost a loss making exercise to play pro tennis for them. It is the same in the PGA Tour. For all the millions earned by the tournament winners - miss the cut and you are out of pocket following travel and accommodation costs etc. There was a player doing quite well a few weeks ago who they reckoned had lost over $70k so far this season after not making a cut.

It goes way beyond equal pay across the sexes.

Windsor_Eagle
23-03-2016, 09:03 AM
If I'm not mistaken Windsor, you have a son and a daughter.

Say they are both outstanding at tennis as they grow. They play against each other, winning about 50:50. Then, comes a time when bodies change and the boy gets stronger naturally. At this point, how will you explain to your daughter that regardless of her ability, her sex means that she will earn less than her brother?

My focus would be on campaigning for making women's tennis at the major events 5 sets like men's. I see no reason at all why women are unable to compete over 5 sets (and I am not laying the blame at their door at all - I'm sure most women players would want to play more sets if they could). At other events that require the same match rules I have absolutely no critique at all of equal pay.

Pardew's Shorts posted a very good post on the previous page which put forward a lot of cogent arguments as to why the equal pay in tennis is absolutely right and I agreed with a hell of a lot of what he said.

nicknackpalace
23-03-2016, 09:15 AM
My focus would be on campaigning for making women's tennis at the major events 5 sets like men's. I see no reason at all why women are unable to compete over 5 sets (and I am not laying the blame at their door at all - I'm sure most women players would want to play more sets if they could). At other events that require the same match rules I have absolutely no critique at all of equal pay.

Pardew's Shorts posted a very good post on the previous page which put forward a lot of cogent arguments as to why the equal pay in tennis is absolutely right and I agreed with a hell of a lot of what he said.

It would be interesting to know how much demand there would be from the paying public to see 5 sets of womens tennis.

AndyStreet
23-03-2016, 09:21 AM
The whole thing is a mess. The men's game generates far more money than the women's game. But the issue if you split that up so even at joint events the WTA and the ATP sell rights separately and the men get paid more, then inevitably some of the men will turn around and say why the hell are you paying $x in prize money to that dude I beat in round 1, people came to see me.

Basically all the revenues are generated by interest in the stars, in the same way Palace get paid a fortune in TV money which if they had to negotiate on their own they would make so much less it is frightening (people are paying to see the wankers, other wankers and the other other wankers). But ultimately if you pay all the coin to those who generate it you end up with just exhibition matches as no one else can afford to play the game as they cannot make a living out of it as Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are getting all the money.

In short it's a mess. There is no sensible justification why women should be paid the same as men when they play a different game. but at the same time if you go down the reward who generates the revenue properly you could destroy the game (and make Djokovic very very rich indeed).
I can only assume those replying to this thread think it would be fairer if Palace take home 3m in prize/TV money after a Premier League season and Man Utd take home 350m.

BERT'S HEAD
23-03-2016, 09:25 AM
I can only assume those replying to this thread think it would be fairer if Palace take home 3m in prize/TV money after a Premier League season and Man Utd take home 350m.

We play against the big boys. The women don't.

maestro
23-03-2016, 09:26 AM
I can only assume those replying to this thread think it would be fairer if Palace take home 3m in prize/TV money after a Premier League season and Man Utd take home 350m.

Thats completely different because price money direct correlates to the ability to compete next season

Should the junior ans senior tours get paid the same prize money?

Like it or not for most folks Mens tennis is the pinnacle of the sport.

And before anyone accuses me of being sexist Id say womens gymnastics is better than mens, they should get paid more more.

maestro
23-03-2016, 09:29 AM
We play against the big boys. The women don't.

Thats a very good point

They compete own category because they wouldnt be competitive against the men.

saxoneagle
23-03-2016, 10:36 AM
The price at Wimbledon is the same every day regardless of sex.

No it isn't.

The women's final tickets are the same price as the men's semi-finals. The men's final tickets are 30 more than the women's final for 2016.
http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/tickets/tickets_what_you_need_to_know.html

kolinkins
23-03-2016, 11:01 AM
My focus would be on campaigning for making women's tennis at the major events 5 sets like men's. I see no reason at all why women are unable to compete over 5 sets (and I am not laying the blame at their door at all - I'm sure most women players would want to play more sets if they could). At other events that require the same match rules I have absolutely no critique at all of equal pay.

Pardew's Shorts posted a very good post on the previous page which put forward a lot of cogent arguments as to why the equal pay in tennis is absolutely right and I agreed with a hell of a lot of what he said.

But you didn't actually answer my question!

Wydehurst
23-03-2016, 11:05 AM
There is no justification for women to be paid as much as men in tennis. They are playing the sexism card to push their own interests.
If women's tennis generated as much money as men then they would have a case. The number of sets played is also an argument against but less significant.

When will women footballers want as much money as men for playing in front of mainly friends and family?

Windsor_Eagle
23-03-2016, 11:10 AM
But you didn't actually answer my question!

Well my answer would be that the rules of engagement differ (which is unfair) and that plays a part in the outside interest in the game and therefore the pay is out of kilter. However, prize money for the big tournaments (i.e. the majors) IS equal currently. Therefore, the issue of her gender being why she earns less in certain events is at the door of the WTA who negotiate and agree the prize money for tournaments etc and whose job it is requires them not just to campaign for equal pay (as important an issue as that is) but also actively look to promote the sport and generate much greater interest in it.

saxoneagle
23-03-2016, 11:25 AM
I can only assume those replying to this thread think it would be fairer if Palace take home 3m in prize/TV money after a Premier League season and Man Utd take home 350m.

Except Palace and ManU play in the same competition, over the same duration and are all members of an organisation who negotiates on their behalf.

The WTA and ATP are different tours, different lengths and negotiate differently with sponsors.

But other than that mate, good point :p:D

AndyStreet
23-03-2016, 11:48 AM
Except Palace and ManU play in the same competition, over the same duration and are all members of an organisation who negotiates on their behalf.

The WTA and ATP are different tours, different lengths and negotiate differently with sponsors.

But other than that mate, good point :p:D

Either you're in favour of cross-subsidisation, or you're not. In one instance the aim of cross-subsidisation is the supposed creation of more even playing field between direct competitors, in the other its the creation of a more even playing field between the two arms of the sport and the ability of the gender in the less lucrative arm of the sport to earn a greater amount. It's clearly the same economic mechanism though, as Andy Murray also acknowledged in reference to the lower tour players who are paid more simply because they are in the same direct field as Djokovic.

For the record, I don't think there is an easy answer either way and am minded to agree with Adler.

kolinkins
23-03-2016, 11:53 AM
Well my answer would be that the rules of engagement differ (which is unfair) and that plays a part in the outside interest in the game and therefore the pay is out of kilter. However, prize money for the big tournaments (i.e. the majors) IS equal currently. Therefore, the issue of her gender being why she earns less in certain events is at the door of the WTA who negotiate and agree the prize money for tournaments etc and whose job it is requires them not just to campaign for equal pay (as important an issue as that is) but also actively look to promote the sport and generate much greater interest in it.

Sure that'll make perfect sense to an 11 year old.

oz_da II
23-03-2016, 11:55 AM
My focus would be on campaigning for making women's tennis at the major events 5 sets like men's. I see no reason at all why women are unable to compete over 5 sets (and I am not laying the blame at their door at all - I'm sure most women players would want to play more sets if they could). At other events that require the same match rules I have absolutely no critique at all of equal pay.

I wouldn't wish the act of having to watch the vast majority of professional women tennis players playing five sets of tennis on anyone.
A quick cure for insomniacs.

Windsor_Eagle
23-03-2016, 11:59 AM
Sure that'll make perfect sense to an 11 year old.

What are you getting at? I already said that it was unfair in my answer.

The current state of play is that in the majors, the prize money is equal. The WTA only events pay less than the ATP events do. That is for the relevant bodies to negotiate. I do not advocate making pay unequal. I advocate making men's and women's match rules identical. That would help to drive up the interest in the women's game and would also take apart the argument of longer matches etc. One action, a whole load of silly argument goes away.

And yes, if an 11 year old girl who is very interested and very good at tennis is looking seriously at taking it towards professional level then she'll have a pretty good concept of structures like the WTA.

Windsor_Eagle
23-03-2016, 12:01 PM
I wouldn't wish the act of having to watch the vast majority of professional women tennis players playing five sets of tennis on anyone.
A quick cure for insomniacs.

I actually think it'd make the game far more interesting and you'd get more consistent performers apart from Serena and some half decent rivalries will start thus boosting the interest subsequently boosting the remuneration of the sport.

henryhallandhisbasque
23-03-2016, 12:06 PM
I used to love watching the Grand Slam tournaments during the 70s and 80s in particular. My interest waned when 'personality' players (aka troublemakers) were airbrushed out the sport.

This argument (women being paid the same prize monies as men) has been going for decades. My own view is when we see the world women's number one take a set off a men's player in the ATP top 500, that's the time to take the issue more seriously. Or you could extend the equal pay in sport argument to football and demand the same wages for League Two players as they get in the Premier League.

kolinkins
23-03-2016, 12:06 PM
What are you getting at? I already said that it was unfair in my answer.

The current state of play is that in the majors, the prize money is equal. The WTA only events pay less than the ATP events do. That is for the relevant bodies to negotiate. I do not advocate making pay unequal. I advocate making men's and women's match rules identical. That would help to drive up the interest in the women's game and would also take apart the argument of longer matches etc. One action, a whole load of silly argument goes away.

And yes, if an 11 year old girl who is very interested and very good at tennis is looking seriously at taking it towards professional level then she'll have a pretty good concept of structures like the WTA.

Not getting at anything. Was just saying I'm not sure your (well written) post would be something which would satisfy a kid as to why she'll be paid less than someone of equal ability

Windsor_Eagle
23-03-2016, 12:10 PM
Not getting at anything. Was just saying I'm not sure your (well written) post would be something which would satisfy a kid as to why she'll be paid less than someone of equal ability

Ah, I see.

Well, despite this little bit of a storm in a teacup this last week over some comments, I think if anything in the years ahead things will go the direction of more equal, not less equal. The societal backdrop has been on a curve towards equality rather than away from it (even if there are still lots of hurdles to overcome and lots more still to happen before true equality is reached).

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons though on one part of your post - if both had a real talent for tennis that it took them to professional level, by the time they are full grown adults the talent wouldn't really be 'equal'. That is another debate altogether, but where physicality makes a huge difference to overall ability, males nearly every time are going to outperform females (I don't, however, think that is relevant in terms of pay).

Selhurst Celtic
23-03-2016, 04:31 PM
If I'm not mistaken Windsor, you have a son and a daughter.

Say they are both outstanding at tennis as they grow. They play against each other, winning about 50:50. Then, comes a time when bodies change and the boy gets stronger naturally. At this point, how will you explain to your daughter that regardless of her ability, her sex means that she will earn less than her brother?

I'd tell her to stop playing sports, marry well and not to worry her pretty little head about such things.

AndyStreet
23-03-2016, 04:45 PM
I'd tell her to stop playing sports, marry well and not to worry her pretty little head about such things.

You were a bit more nuanced when you wrote about this earlier:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/matthewsyed/article4718699.ece?shareToken=163cc05d36f9bbe3d670 a37b2dfcf5bc

Funk Butter
30-06-2016, 09:14 PM
I've been out of the tennis loop for a while because when I heard the name Garbine Muguruza, I thought it was a Lord of the Rings character.

WLYWLYAWYPWF
07-07-2016, 12:29 PM
Embarrassing mismatch thus far in women's semi. I google the lady getting rinsed to love and see she has earned nearly 8million dollars in her career. :eek:

WLYWLYAWYPWF
07-07-2016, 01:01 PM
People complain about footballers pay. 500,000 for being outclassed in 48 minutes. Absolute disgrace.

Tim
07-07-2016, 02:21 PM
Women have the opportunity to earn more money than the men at Wimbledon. As their games are much shorter they have more time to compete in other competitions like the doubles & mixed doubles, where as the men don't.

Sydenham Eagle
13-07-2016, 01:58 PM
Are tickets for women's matches at Wimbledon less costly than men's?

Yes they are actually. Tickets for the men's final were more expensive than the women's final.

pardew's shorts
13-07-2016, 02:03 PM
Women have the opportunity to earn more money than the men at Wimbledon. As their games are much shorter they have more time to compete in other competitions like the doubles & mixed doubles, where as the men don't.

They'll be giving them the vote next.

Sydenham Eagle
13-07-2016, 02:11 PM
There's nothing to stop men entering multiple events. The top male players play doubles most weeks on the ATP tour. Clearly the players in contention to win a GS singles title are going to make it a priority to give themselves the best chance. Most of them will happily play doubles at the Olympics when a chance of a gold medal is up for grabs. Similarly ridiculous that Mahut and Herbert who hold 2 of the GS doubles titles are having to appeal to play in the Olympics despite being the No.1 ranked pair in the world!