Apologies if this has been discussed on here before, but what do people think about this? I'm a huge fan of the women's game, probably more than the men's but I just can't condone the issue of equal prize money at all for several reasons. Women don't play as many sets as the men in the majors and ticket sales suggest that people would rather watch the men's game, although that gap is narrowing I think.
Also, there is much more of a gap between the top women and those
outside the top 50, and that's why they breeze through the early
rounds in less than an hour, as opposed to the men, who are almost
always given a tough test. Anyone got any views on this? Is suppose if I
posted this on the WTA board I might get a different response
A lot has been said on this. But I believe that it should be equal for both.
Women players work just as hard as the male compatriots do, infact women have a lot of discomfortness in many ways compared to men.
It can be argued that men's tennis is best of 5, and they play for a long time on court compared to the women. But honestly best of 5 is only at Grandslams and in the finals of TMS events. They too play best of 3 in all other tournaments. So, why not equal prize money??
If you can prove that ticket sales suggest that, I'd really like to hear it. And don't cite those laughable Wimbledon polls the club had done. Those don't strike me as terribly scientific, and even if they were they wouldn't be very meaningful anyway.
Even though I am a woman, I totally agree with Dokigor, - I have lost count of the number of early round Grand Slam matches where the likes of the Williams' sisters win their matches 6-0, 6-1 in less than an hour, while Top 10 male players have been forced into 5 setters. If I found out a colleague at my office was working less than half my hours and earning the same money I would be extremely upset and angry - this is no different. Equal pay for equal work is great - but 2 sets taking 50 minutes is in no way equal work to 5 sets taking 3 hours or more in my opinion. And I don't know about the ticket sale issue, but I do know that when I go to a Grand Slam event such as Wimbledon or Roland Garros, more fans are there for their favourite male player (whether it's Hewitt, Agassi, Federer or whoever), than seem to be there for the female matches. Most of the female matches seem to be an excuse for people to get food, walk around, buy souvenirs etc.
I like this :lol: Short and to the point and I agree It is supposed to be equal pay for equal work, but the women don't do equal work in all Tournaments. I at least think they should get less money in GSs where it is very clear they do a lot less work!
Well I'm not interested in football or golf but that doesn't mean they deserve to be paid less.
Bottom line is that equal prize money is here to stay. I can see the merits of both sides of the argument (though not the bigoted crap spewed by Tisparevic) but now that the move has been made, the political and social fallout from changing back again would be too great and damaging to the game as a whole.
The women's game is easy to bash right now but it's only a few years ago that the Williams sisters, Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Mauresmo et al were slugging it out on the women's tour while Federer was handing out bagels to the #2 ranked ATP player nearly every time they played. The WTA had, in John McEnroe's words, "the better product" back then.
Even though I am a woman, I totally agree with Dokigor, - I have lost count of the number of early round Grand Slam matches where the likes of the Williams' sisters win their matches 6-0, 6-1 in less than an hour, while Top 10 male players have been forced into 5 setters. If I found out a colleague at my office was working less than half my hours and earning the same money I would be extremely upset and angry - this is no different. Equal pay for equal work is great - but 2 sets taking 50 minutes is in no way equal work to 5 sets taking 3 hours or more in my opinion. And I don't know about the ticket sale issue, but I do know that when I go to a Grand Slam event such as Wimbledon or Roland Garros, more fans are there for their favourite male player (whether it's Hewitt, Agassi, Federer or whoever), than seem to be there for the female matches. Most of the female matches seem to be an excuse for people to get food, walk around, buy souvenirs etc.
LOL. And if their work was just as valuable, would you have a case then?
Your experience at tournaments is nothing but conjecture.
And why don't you compare fair with fair? 2 sets taking 50 minutes versus 3 sets taking an hour and twenty. I didn't see much difference between the early rounds of Federer and Serena at Wimbledon this year. Or would you like to use only the extreme match lengths that suit you?
This is the only No vote that sounds halfway intelligent and the only reason for that is because you don't give any of the retarded excuses for discrimination.
This is the only No vote that sounds halfway intelligent and the only reason for that is because you don't give any of the retarded excuses for discrimination.
You are the commissioner for the WTA, so there is no point in me stating the reasons for why I think that, and anything can used as an excuse for discrimination.
You are the commissioner for the WTA, so there is no point in me stating the reasons for why I think that, and anything can used as an excuse for discrimination.
It's an issue that I stopped long talking about, but there is a key to the amount of advertising revenue and sponsorship generated through the respective tours.
NO. It would be a shame to see them having the same prize money while they win their matches 6/1 6/2 until the quarters.
In tennis, the difference between men and women is still too important in my opinion.
I strongly disagree with the number of sets argument. The gold medal for a women isn't smaller just because she took one more second running 100 mts that men's winner.
And about the easy matches for top-women, Roger Federer hadn't a hard work in earlier rounds at Wimby. If u truly believe what u are saying, Federer shouldn't have received all the prize money
NO. It would be a shame to see them having the same prize money while they win their matches 6/1 6/2 until the quarters.
In tennis, the difference between men and women is still too important in my opinion.
That's the point. Boring is something very subjetive. I admire Federer's gifts but i found him extremely boring (like Sampras). However, the rivarly between top women players is something that i enjoy deeply. But i'd never say "pay Roger less 'coz he's boring and he trashes his opponents too easily"
If they don't want to give equal prize money, then don't make men and women play at the same time (in other words: first monday, all first round women matches, first tuesday, all first round men matches, ...). Then compare how much money men generate versus women and you can give prize money that reflects that.
I've asked many times what do some Slams gain by giving slighly less money to women.
I never got an answer.
The only thing it does is giving male players a small satisfaction for their ego.
Fact is: it hurts no one to give the same amount of money to men and women. They make enough profit that it wouldn't make a difference to them.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!