You still didn't answer my question
people here are arguing for equal pay for equal work, saying men deserve more because they play more sets. Footballers that play the same amount of time are paid wildly different amounts based on individual value. The more entertaining players earn more, but how do you quantify that in tennis? You can't. You win or you lose. You can't make arbitrary distinctions between which players are arguably more entertaining and then use that as a judge for how you pay them. You can't use popularity either because guess what, Stakhovsky and Tipsarevic would make less than Sharapova and Serena and all the low ranked players would continue to suffer. Unless people are arguing that players who play five sets deserve more than those who play three, since they're putting in the most effort?
1. Ronaldo and Messi get more money for the same time spent on the pitch cuz they are better players. In tennis terms. This is like asking "why does a USO finalist get more than a guy who fought his way till the 4th round with 5 setters?".
2. Tipsarevic and Stakhovsky never said they deserve more than top female players. Where do you get that shit. Tipsy implied that 5 setters aside, men should be paid more because that's what happens in every sport. He never said that a nobody in ATP should earn more than absolute legends in WTA though.
This is something that bothers me. Even if men were to get twice as much as women for the same result, Tipsy and Simon would earn WAY less than Serena and co on court cuz they never made a semifinal in slams.
This is what I mean when I say "you are being massacred". You are arguing against arguments that no one even thought of. The "Simon thinks he deserves more prize money than Serena and Sharpie" strawman is a fucking joke.
The other point is that, supposedly, people want players to be compensated for "time spent on court". That is bullshit. If you need 5 sets to beat a qualifier in round 1, you only have yourself to blame. However, the longest possible match in terms of sets played for a woman (3) is also the shortest
possible match played for a man. You don't see why that would make an argument for why women don't deserve the same kind of money? Regardless of performance, regardless if you have won the first 2 sets without losing a point, you still have 1 more set to play. A woman can go back to shower already. That's horse shit.
In my opinion, the "best of 5 sets" argument is way stronger than the revenue argument. But even the revenue argument is way stronger than you think. In just about every sport, men make more because in just about any sport, watching men compete is more fun. Nothing to whine about, female models also earn more because for some reason, watching women prance around a catwalk is more fun that watching a dude do it.
ATP players get sour about this because they KNOW that women wouldn't make anywhere near as much prize money if it wasn't for the men. On themselves, they are simply not interesting enough to watch, to make the same kind of money. You can always go ad hominem and say how certain female players are bigger deals than Stakhy and Tipsy. But bottomline is, overall, on their own, women would never generate that much money. They are piggybacking the men by claiming "equal prize money". And THAT'S what pisses them off.
That's why I find it smart that they are looking to seperate the joint events. It would solve the problem, without breaking up the oh so progressive "equal prize money". Equal to whom? Males in another tournament?
In short, if there were no joint events, women would make much less than men, just like in any other sport. But since tennis has joint events, girls can just ride their coat tails and ask for the same compensation. No other sport has this.
I for one, can see where they are coming from.