Equal prize money for men/women in single, RG [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Equal prize money for men/women in single, RG

hablovah19
09-19-2005, 01:59 PM
This has already been posted on wta by GoDominique (but since I didn't notice it here and since so many posters will just love this news, I decided to post it here :devil: )

****sorry in advance, if it has already been posted here too :angel:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-690516@51-650111,0.html

La parité hommes-femmes au programme de Roland-Garros 2006
LE MONDE | 19.09.05 | 14h18
Arrivée en rangs dispersés pour tenter de donner quelques explications sur sa défaite (2-3) face à la Russie en finale de la Fed Cup, dimanche 18 septembre, l'équipe de France faisait la mine des mauvais jours.

Seule consolation : la rencontre de haut vol entre deux des meilleures équipes féminines de tennis aura au moins contribué à populariser la Fed Cup, à qui l'étiquette de parent pauvre de la Coupe Davis n'a plus de raison de coller. Durant le week-end, près de 30 000 personnes ont pris place sur les gradins du court central de Roland-Garros, un score digne des plus grandes heures des Internationaux de France.


"Cette compétition mérite de se jouer dans des endroits comme Roland-Garros et d'autres grands stades. Quand on voit l'engouement du public, les gens qui sont comme des fous derrière nous tout le week-end, ça donne des frissons" , a déclaré Amélie Mauresmo, plus encline à parler du futur de l'épreuve que de sa plutôt piètre prestation dans le double décisif, qu'elle venait de perdre au côté de Mary Pierce (4-6, 6-1, 3-6).

En marge du protocole qui venait de s'achever sur le court Philippe-Chatrier, Georges Goven, le capitaine des Bleues, a tenu, lui aussi, à saluer le public parisien: "Je tenais à vous remercier pour votre sportivité et votre support tout au long du week-end. C'est comme une musique qui restera longtemps dans nos coeurs."

Roland-Garros, justement, était au centre de l'intervention de Christian Bîmes quelques minutes avant que n'apparaissent les Françaises et leur dépit. Le président de la Fédération Française de tennis (FFT) tenait, sans plus attendre, à évoquer le futur des Internationaux de France, deuxième levée du Grand Chelem. Principale annonce : l'édition 2006 durera quinze jours, soit un de plus que d'habitude. Au lieu de commencer un lundi, comme de coutume, la quinzaine de Roland-Garros débutera un dimanche, le 28 mai, pour s'achever le dimanche 11 juin.

Ce jour-là, douze matches seront programmés sur les trois principaux courts de Roland-Garros : le court central, le court Suzanne-Lenglen et le court nº1. L'opération devait accroître de manière non négligeable (de l'ordre de 25 000 places) la vente, déjà florissante, des billets et, selon le président Bîmes, "offrira d'excellentes retombées médiatiques, puisque l'on sait que le dimanche les écarts d'audience à la télévision sont importants" . Autre nouveauté annoncée par Christian Bîmes, le prix réservé au vainqueur sera, pour la première fois, d'un montant identique dans le simple dames et dans le simple messieurs. Cette parité ne visera toutefois que les vainqueurs des tournois masculin et féminin, a précisé le président la Fédération française de tennis.

"Je n'ai pas souhaité que cela aille plus loin , a expliqué le président de la FFT. Simplement parce que je reste encore persuadé qu'il y a un petit décalage entre les hommes et les femmes." Les Françaises, à peine remises de leurs vains efforts pour décrocher la victoire en Fed Cup, apprécieront certainement la nuance.

Jean-Jacques Larochelle
Article paru dans l'édition du 20.09.05

joeb_uk
09-19-2005, 02:52 PM
:mad: I am a fan of both wta/atp, but there is no way in hell wta should ever get the same prize money as atp! Its criminal!! :mad:

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 02:55 PM
This has been mentioned in the RG starting on Sunday thread.

Viva Wimbledon that is all I can say.

joeb_uk
09-19-2005, 03:00 PM
How long will it be before women are demaning more prize money than men :lol: God i dread to think of that ever happening :help:

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 03:02 PM
These clowns have also given into giving the women equal prizemoney, at least that's one thing I will give Wimbledon and good for them.

It looks like I might have to find my old posts as to why this is a bad idea.

joeb_uk
09-19-2005, 03:06 PM
These clowns have also given into giving the women equal prizemoney, at least that's one thing I will give Wimbledon and good for them.

It looks like I might have to find my old posts as to why this is a bad idea.
They shouldnt have backed down! Awful decision :eek:

WTA has no grounds on to justify equal prize money, so it shouldnt be given. Well done to the idiots who backed down :mad:

Experimentee
09-19-2005, 03:22 PM
WTA brings as much entertainment as ATP, so of course they should get as much prizemoney :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 03:24 PM
WTA brings as much entertainment as ATP, so of course they should get as much prizemoney :rolleyes:

Now what factors are going to be used to measure entertainment levels?

Experimentee
09-19-2005, 03:33 PM
Now what factors are going to be used to measure entertainment levels?

The number of fans going to see the matches, the ratings on tv etc. And we must take into account all countries and not just a few where mens tennis is more popular.
Anyway I think we've been thru all this before, and i've read your points and am not convinced, and neither will you be changing your mind, so IMO it would be tiresome to rehash all this again.

delsa
09-19-2005, 03:34 PM
one could argue that the women don't play best of five sets matches but best of three like i think Myskina did for explaining she had no problem with the situation as it was before too...

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 03:35 PM
The number of fans going to see the matches, the ratings on tv etc. And we must take into account all countries and not just a few where mens tennis is more popular.
Anyway I think we've been thru all this before, and i've read your points and am not convinced, and neither will you be changing your mind, so IMO it would be tiresome to rehash all this again.

Shouldn't be relevant to the particular TV market? If you have read them, then could you provide counter arguments to where they are wrong.

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 03:42 PM
So Roland Garros decided to give into demands and award equal prizemoney, what has changed from before except the dates.

To the supporters of the WTA. Some questions. Where has there been an example of major international sports where the women outdraw in more money through TV revenue, corporate sponsorship and respective ticket sales? It doesn't happen in football, not basketball, not volleyball and definitely not tennis, no beach volleyball doesn't count.

If the WTA are so sure that they bring in equal revenue at the Slams and generate as much as money as the ATP. Then they should release these figures and get an independent auditor to both tours and see where the corporate sponsorship, ticket sales and the prizemoney is favoured to.

I doubt that women's tennis globally (not just in the USA) brings in as much as revenue as the men's game and that is a common theme throughout the professional sporting world as I have stated before.

If the WTA are able do that, and in Jerry Maguire speak "Show them the money" then yes they should get equal prizemoney.

If WTA internationally (not the USA) out draws and outgrosses the ATP financially when it comes to these factors. Then why doesn't the WTA events have as much as prizemoney as the ATP overall.

The money from the ATP and WTA doesn't just go the tour and their money helps Slams together with the ITF. The ATP being a richer organisation than the WTA and have clearly shown this in that they bring in more overall revenue than the WTA to the Slams, if it wasn't the case, why wouldn't the WTA publicise it?

It's the supporters of the WTA and equal prizemoney crusaders for them to prove that they are deserving of that and not the ATP. The womens matches at the Slams especially the early rounders are for stretching your legs, getting food and seeing who is practicing for finding another mens match to watch.

I hope they have an all womens QF day. Last time that happened it stunk and was a very bad day finance wise for the tournament and they have not done that since. Then there was the time when they played all the quarter finals on Lenglen instead of Chartier. Do you think they would have put the guys out there all of their matches? Yet they are now prepared to give equal prizemoney.

Just using a basic economic argument here.

Experimentee
09-19-2005, 03:50 PM
Shouldn't be relevant to the particular TV market? If you have read them, then could you provide counter arguments to where they are wrong.

The tv market is for all countries that televise tennis, and obviously some countries which have more successful male players will give more attention to mens tennis, like Australia, but there are countries where womens tennis is popular because they have their own stars.

I think that historically, womens tennis hasnt been as popular as mens tennis, due to a general disrespect of womens sport, but now it has caught up, and there are as many WTA fans as there are ATP fans. So logically there should be equal prizemoney. As in any occupation, the default position should be equal money for the same job, unless you can provide concrete proof that one deserves more money.

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 03:55 PM
The tv market is for all countries that televise tennis, and obviously some countries which have more successful male players will give more attention to mens tennis, like Australia, but there are countries where womens tennis is popular because they have their own stars.

It's only an issue at 4 of the Slams and at RG the mens game is more highly regarded, it would never happen that they put 4 QFs of the guy on Lenglen instead of Chartrier.

I think that historically, womens tennis hasnt been as popular as mens tennis, due to a general disrespect of womens sport, but now it has caught up, and there are as many WTA fans as there are ATP fans. So logically there should be equal prizemoney. As in any occupation, the default position should be equal money for the same job, unless you can provide concrete proof that one deserves more money.

It has got better, but it still isn't as popular, and that's the same for womens sport, if they had the same level of fans and corporate sponsorship, ticket sales, then their tournaments would be richer than they are at the moment.

Papakori
09-19-2005, 04:00 PM
:(

Experimentee
09-19-2005, 04:22 PM
It's only an issue at 4 of the Slams and at RG the mens game is more highly regarded, it would never happen that they put 4 QFs of the guy on Lenglen instead of Chartrier..

There is still the tv audience around the world who would like to see womens matches as well. There has to be tv sponsors, as well as money to buy the rights.


It has got better, but it still isn't as popular, and that's the same for womens sport, if they had the same level of fans and corporate sponsorship, ticket sales, then their tournaments would be richer than they are at the moment.

WTA tournaments are not as rich because as I said they havent had as much time to establish themselves, build up sponsorships etc because they are only building up popularity now. If women's tennis stops being treated as a 2nd rate sport and is given equal standing and prizemoney, that is the only way for it to grow and increase in depth, as more players will be encouraged to take up the sport if there is more money in it. If this happens, women's tennis will attract a lot more fans and be more respected.

I dont get why there should be any outrage over women getting the same amount of money anyway. Its not like money is being taken from the men in order to achieve this, its just an increase in what the women get.

*julie*
09-19-2005, 04:27 PM
I hope they have an all womens QF day. Last time that happened it stunk and was a very bad day finance wise for the tournament and they have not done that since. Then there was the time when they played all the quarter finals on Lenglen instead of Chartier. Do you think they would have put the guys out there all of their matches? Yet they are now prepared to give equal prizemoney.

Just using a basic economic argument here.

I agree that WTA is not as exciting as ATP.
But this equal prize money for men and women is only related to the winner of the GS (and not all the rounds winner...). And for the final, Phillipe Chatrier is as much sold out for men as for women. (at least that's what I think...) :shrug:

Merton
09-19-2005, 04:28 PM
The tv market is for all countries that televise tennis, and obviously some countries which have more successful male players will give more attention to mens tennis, like Australia, but there are countries where womens tennis is popular because they have their own stars.

I think that historically, womens tennis hasnt been as popular as mens tennis, due to a general disrespect of womens sport, but now it has caught up, and there are as many WTA fans as there are ATP fans. So logically there should be equal prizemoney. As in any occupation, the default position should be equal money for the same job, unless you can provide concrete proof that one deserves more money.

You can still see whether women's tennis generates the same revenue as men's tennis by examining separately events from ATP and WTA. Take for example the Montreal/Toronto situation, where you get the ATP tournament followed by the WTA tournament within a week. Which one gives more prize money? Which one generates more revenue? That is a ***** for the difference between men's and women's events. My suspicion is that the men's events generate greater revenue.

It is difficult to isolate the slams because men and women are bandled together there. I would be curious to see whether the RG organizers provide some economic rationale for equating prize money, apart from the political correctness of their decision.

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 04:36 PM
There is still the tv audience around the world who would like to see womens matches as well. There has to be tv sponsors, as well as money to buy the rights.

Of course there is and I haven't said otherwise, except for the fact that it is smaller. The main reason Eurosport does the womens events now whereas before they used to the mens event was because the ATP could charge more for their TV rights than before, something the WTA hasn't been able to do you yet.

WTA tournaments are not as rich because as I said they havent had as much time to establish themselves, build up sponsorships etc because they are only building up popularity now. If women's tennis stops being treated as a 2nd rate sport and is given equal standing and prizemoney, that is the only way for it to grow and increase in depth, as more players will be encouraged to take up the sport if there is more money in it. If this happens, women's tennis will attract a lot more fans and be more respected.

It's not just a time thing, apart from beach volleyball, mens sports do bring in increased revenue from all those factors I have spoken about previously or do you doubt that?

Look at the end of season champs the ATP has the better crowds etc and what just being PC for the sake of it. You know the ATP generates more revenue than the WTA and this should be reflected in the Slams as well.

I dont get why there should be any outrage over women getting the same amount of money anyway. Its not like money is being taken from the men in order to achieve this, its just an increase in what the women get.

Actually the problem is that more cash should be distributed better than it is at the moment, and the depth while getting better still has a very long way to go.

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 04:38 PM
I agree that WTA is not as exciting as ATP.
But this equal prize money for men and women is only related to the winner of the GS (and not all the rounds winner...). And for the final, Phillipe Chatrier is as much sold out for men as for women. (at least that's what I think...) :shrug:

It's not an excitement issue here, it's just simple economics and the final should sell out at any Slam.

It's not for the winner, if they mean equal prizemoney like the other Slams besides Wimbledon that means the same from 1st round to the Final.

*julie*
09-19-2005, 04:45 PM
It's not for the winner, if they mean equal prizemoney like the other Slams besides Wimbledon that means the same from 1st round to the Final

Cette parité ne visera toutefois que les vainqueurs des tournois masculin et féminin, a précisé le président la Fédération française de tennis.

"Je n'ai pas souhaité que cela aille plus loin , a expliqué le président de la FFT. Simplement parce que je reste encore persuadé qu'il y a un petit décalage entre les hommes et les femmes."

Translation: however this equal prize money will only be related to the men and women winners precised the president of the FFT.
"I didn't want to go further. Only, because I am still convinced that there is a slight gap between men and women"

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 04:51 PM
Cette parité ne visera toutefois que les vainqueurs des tournois masculin et féminin, a précisé le président la Fédération française de tennis.

"Je n'ai pas souhaité que cela aille plus loin , a expliqué le président de la FFT. Simplement parce que je reste encore persuadé qu'il y a un petit décalage entre les hommes et les femmes."

Translation: however this equal prize money will only be related to the men and women winners precised the president of the FFT.
"I didn't want to go further. Only, because I am still convinced that there is a slight gap between men and women"

Merci, so in other words it's only a half measure, still there shouldn't be even for the winner of the final.

*julie*
09-19-2005, 05:00 PM
Merci, so in other words it's only a half measure, still there shouldn't be even for the winner of the final.

With pleasure. For once that I can learn you something... :lol:

Action Jackson
09-19-2005, 05:05 PM
With pleasure. For once that I can learn you something... :lol:

Not a problem, good to see the quote in its original language and they haven't totally lost their heads yet.

R.Federer
09-19-2005, 05:18 PM
The WTA probably overall brings in less revenue than the ATP matches, but the difference may be small enough that it is not worth the Roland Garros organizers to make a scene to pay them 10% less and make a poor face for themselves with accusations of "discrimination" and "misogynist". (The British organizers dont care about poor face. They always go back to "tradition this, tradition that". )

Also, these are things in cycles. 3 years ago, when 8 slams are won by 8 different men, while the Wiliams + Belgians + capriati are generating excitement, there probable are large number of people more interested in WTA matches. If negotiations begin at that time, it is difficult to make the case that men is much more interesting than women matches.

uNIVERSE mAN
09-19-2005, 10:36 PM
Women's tennis makes me vomit.

its.like.that
09-20-2005, 01:15 AM
what a joke... shall we have the same argument again.

Scotso
09-20-2005, 01:20 AM
I don't understand why posters on this board are so hostile towards women's tennis. But whatever.

Galaxystorm
09-20-2005, 09:21 AM
Eurosport always say that they show more female matches than male during the year because some years ago they noticed the female tennis audiences were higher than male.

At the beginning this explanation has always surprised me a bit, so i would like to know in your respective countries what tennis ( ATP or WTA ) has more interest, has more TV audiences ??

Thanks.

jtipson
09-20-2005, 09:43 AM
Eurosport always say that they show more female matches than male during the year because some years ago they noticed the female tennis audiences were higher than male.
.

That's crazy though - why do they think a female tennis audience would want to watch women? Very generally speaking, I'd expect women want to watch men and vice versa, although there's plenty of men who don't like WTA either.


At the beginning this explanation has always surprised me a bit, so i would like to know in your respective countries what tennis ( ATP or WTA ) has more interest, has more TV audiences ??
Thanks.

Not sure how it would be possible to measure that.

TheMightyFed
09-20-2005, 09:44 AM
With a bit of bad faith, LOL at this year's US open differences; maybe it is afirmative action:
Kim Clijsters: 138 games played, 2.2 million dollars
Andre Agassi: 289 games played (2.1 times more), 825,000 dollars (2.7 times less)
(tie-breaker is considered as one game)
Edited for Agassi, still...

jtipson
09-20-2005, 09:45 AM
I don't understand why posters on this board are so hostile towards women's tennis. But whatever.

Because it's generally crap compared to the men's game, and a lot of the publicity it gets is for non-tennis reasons.

LoveFifteen
09-20-2005, 10:03 AM
We're talking about an increase of 13,000 Euro! Sheesh! Some of you are acting like the universe has been rent asunder.

13,000 Euro is a pittance. The more tennis can do to shed its image as a sport for women-hating, aristocratic, snobby white people, the better.

LoveFifteen
09-20-2005, 10:07 AM
Andre won more than 500,000 at the US Open because he was 2nd place in the US Open series. I think he won around 825,000.

Why the hell do some of you guys even care about prize money?! I mean, seriously, why the f-ck do you care? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Does it? This year at Roland Garros, Justine took home 867,000 Euro this year and Rafael Nadal took home 880,000. If Justine had gotten that extra 13,000 Euro, would your lives have fallen apart?

Physically unattractive straight men are so pathetic ... always so mysoginistic and bitter.

TheMightyFed
09-20-2005, 10:13 AM
Physically unattractive straight men are so pathetic ... always so mysoginistic and bitter.
:haha: :haha: :haha:
Who's bitter ? :devil:

LoveFifteen
09-20-2005, 10:27 AM
:haha: :haha: :haha:
Who's bitter ? :devil:

Your mother, probably.

I'd be bitter too if I gave birth to a physically unattractive misogynist.

Neely
09-20-2005, 10:46 AM
With a bit of bad faith, LOL at this year's US open differences; maybe it is afirmative action:
Kim Clijsters: 139 games played, 2.2 million dollars
Andre Agassi: 296 games played (2.1 times more), 825,000 dollars (2.7 times less)
(tie-breaker is considered as one game)
Edited for Agassi, still...
Nobody told Agassi to go over five sets three times in a row. As for the huge amount of game and time he spent on the court, it's his fault as he had the chance to win his matches quicker.
The "same work, some money" approach doesn't work when doing it like that.

But it's right to say that the men need three sets to win a match and the women only two, and that's difference enough.

Allez-H²
09-20-2005, 11:00 AM
Finally! They did the right thing, womenstennis has become almost as popular (and in some countries even more popular) as menstennis. The thing about men playing more games and all and that there's more depth in it is just one argument. You have to look what matches draw the people. And so what if Kim beats player X with 6/1, 6/0 if the audience is there and they watched there's nothing to nag about. Plus WTA has a lot more depth right now then 3 years ago if you look carefully to the Slams-winners the last two years, you'll notice how many different Slam-winners there are. Only Justine H-H was able to win twice in a Slam the last two years: (2004) AO: Justine, FO: Nastya, W: Maria S. , USO: Svetlana; (2005) AO: Serena, FO: Justine, W: Venus, USO: Kim.

The WTA has numerous stars, and even if the first couple of rounds aren't always amazing the latter stages are most of the times encounters where you just go :drool:

Plus we're in 2005 people, I think it's good time to start thinking 'equal' :rolleyes:

nobama
09-20-2005, 11:04 AM
When a women's match lasts 5 hours (like Nadal/Coria in Rome) then pay 'em what the men get paid. I'm sorry but most of the time the men just work harder out there, they should be paid more. Of course the Wimbledon finals this year was the opposite - the womens match lasted almost twice as long as the mens, but that's quite rare.

If they're doing this at the slams, then should they be doing it at every tournament. Because isn't the payout in mens events more than womens?

nobama
09-20-2005, 11:06 AM
Plus we're in 2005 people, I think it's good time to start thinking 'equal' :rolleyes:Equal pay for equal work though?

Allez-H²
09-20-2005, 11:10 AM
Equal pay for equal work though?
Look you're a fedfan, don't a lot of his matches end in three sets with him outplaying his opponent? That means he's less on court then most of the players does that mean he has to be payed less?

avocadoe
09-20-2005, 11:21 AM
I believe equal is fair...both men and women put in the same years, parental outlay, and are building a life.

TheMightyFed
09-20-2005, 12:11 PM
are rules different in football and volley between men and women ?

uNIVERSE mAN
09-20-2005, 01:12 PM
Your mother, probably.

I'd be bitter too if I gave birth to a physically unattractive misogynist.

sounds like you've been sodomised.

uNIVERSE mAN
09-20-2005, 01:13 PM
are rules different in football and volley between men and women ?

In volleyball the nets are lower by a foot. In football, they move slower.

uNIVERSE mAN
09-20-2005, 01:16 PM
Finally! They did the right thing, womenstennis has become almost as popular (and in some countries even more popular) as menstennis. The thing about men playing more games and all and that there's more depth in it is just one argument. You have to look what matches draw the people. And so what if Kim beats player X with 6/1, 6/0 if the audience is there and they watched there's nothing to nag about. Plus WTA has a lot more depth right now then 3 years ago if you look carefully to the Slams-winners the last two years, you'll notice how many different Slam-winners there are. Only Justine H-H was able to win twice in a Slam the last two years: (2004) AO: Justine, FO: Nastya, W: Maria S. , USO: Svetlana; (2005) AO: Serena, FO: Justine, W: Venus, USO: Kim.

The WTA has numerous stars, and even if the first couple of rounds aren't always amazing the latter stages are most of the times encounters where you just go :drool:

Plus we're in 2005 people, I think it's good time to start thinking 'equal' :rolleyes:

Why the F do people think depth means that more people win Slams? The women's game is just as garbage as it ever was. There are five players who are at the top, and the rest of the tour can never beat them. Also, outside the top 10, the women are shit and have no hope in hell of pulling off upsets.

Allez-H²
09-20-2005, 01:40 PM
Why the F do people think depth means that more people win Slams? The women's game is just as garbage as it ever was. There are five players who are at the top, and the rest of the tour can never beat them. Also, outside the top 10, the women are shit and have no hope in hell of pulling off upsets.

:yeah: You know Venus was outside the top 10 at Wimbledon and Mary was I dunno ranked in the 20-30 while RG :shrug: Dannilidou was ranked what, like in the 60's when she beat Justine at Wimbledon? What about Craybas that beat Serena at Wimbledon? Kuzzie losing to Bychkova at USO? Nastya losing to Lorenzo at RG? Venus losing to Karantancheva at RG? And the list goes on and on and on. Surely these upsets aren't just because the topplayers are out of form but also because the opposition is getting much better.

And euhm, before you say that besides the top 10 the women are shit, didn't Nadal and Federer win 10 touneys each this year? So who's there besides them huh?

I just don't get how you can be so bitter about this :unsure:

jenanun
09-20-2005, 01:55 PM
Why the hell do some of you guys even care about prize money?! I mean, seriously, why the f-ck do you care? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Does it? This year at Roland Garros, Justine took home 867,000 Euro this year and Rafael Nadal took home 880,000. If Justine had gotten that extra 13,000 Euro, would your lives have fallen apart?



EXACTLY!!!

its sooooooooooooooo funny that people here are sooooooooo seriously discussing the topics like they are going to win the prize with the ten thousand euro less that they cannot afford to pay the rent anymore!!! haha!

hablovah19
09-20-2005, 02:35 PM
:yeah: You know Venus was outside the top 10 at Wimbledon and Mary was I dunno ranked in the 20-30 while RG :shrug: Dannilidou was ranked what, like in the 60's when she beat Justine at Wimbledon? What about Craybas that beat Serena at Wimbledon? Kuzzie losing to Bychkova at USO? Nastya losing to Lorenzo at RG? Venus losing to Karantancheva at RG? And the list goes on and on and on. Surely these upsets aren't just because the topplayers are out of form but also because the opposition is getting much better.

And euhm, before you say that besides the top 10 the women are shit, didn't Nadal and Federer win 10 touneys each this year? So who's there besides them huh?

I just don't get how you can be so bitter about this :unsure:

he obviously doesn't watch enough womens' tennis to know this nor would he care too :lol::bowdown:

alfonsojose
09-20-2005, 02:41 PM
:yeah: You know Venus was outside the top 10 at Wimbledon and Mary was I dunno ranked in the 20-30 while RG :shrug: Dannilidou was ranked what, like in the 60's when she beat Justine at Wimbledon? What about Craybas that beat Serena at Wimbledon? Kuzzie losing to Bychkova at USO? Nastya losing to Lorenzo at RG? Venus losing to Karantancheva at RG? And the list goes on and on and on. Surely these upsets aren't just because the topplayers are out of form but also because the opposition is getting much better.

And euhm, before you say that besides the top 10 the women are shit, didn't Nadal and Federer win 10 touneys each this year? So who's there besides them huh?

I just don't get how you can be so bitter about this :unsure:
:yeah: When Serena dominated in 2002, women's tennis sucked big time. Now these two guys win everything and they're too good :rolleyes:

hablovah19
09-20-2005, 02:42 PM
:yeah: When Serena dominated in 2002, women's tennis sucked big time. Now these two guys win everything and they're too good :rolleyes:

gotta love the double standard :mad:

*Ljubica*
09-20-2005, 02:52 PM
Andre won more than 500,000 at the US Open because he was 2nd place in the US Open series. I think he won around 825,000.

Why the hell do some of you guys even care about prize money?! I mean, seriously, why the f-ck do you care? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Does it? This year at Roland Garros, Justine took home 867,000 Euro this year and Rafael Nadal took home 880,000. If Justine had gotten that extra 13,000 Euro, would your lives have fallen apart?

Physically unattractive straight men are so pathetic ... always so mysoginistic and bitter.


As a matter of interest, why do you assume that everyone who is against equal prize money is an "unattractive straight man" - who is "pathetic.........mysoginistic and bitter"? I am a straight woman (whether I am attractive or not is not for me to say!), - and I don't agree with it at all. I am not going to go into all my arguments - they've been said before in other threads on this subject, and GWH put them very well in his long post on the first page of this thread - but it's a vast generalisation to say that all the people who dislike WTA or don't agree with equal prize money are from one particular section of society. Yes - I am a feminist to a certain extent, yes I studied hard to gain my degree and expect to be paid equal money to the men who are doing the same job as myself .....but if those men had to spend twice as long in our office then I would expect them to be paid more than me for the extra hours they have put in.

Domino
09-20-2005, 02:56 PM
Just have the women play best three of five already, sheesh ;) :p

TheMightyFed
09-20-2005, 03:02 PM
As a matter of interest, why do you assume that everyone who is against equal prize money is an "unattractive straight man" - who is "pathetic.........mysoginistic and bitter"? I am a straight woman (whether I am attractive or not is not for me to say!), - and I don't agree with it at all. I am not going to go into all my arguments - they've been said before in other threads on this subject, and GWH put them very well in his long post on the first page of this thread - but it's a vast generalisation to say that all the people who dislike WTA or don't agree with equal prize money are from one particular section of society. Yes - I am a feminist to a certain extent, yes I studied hard to gain my degree and expect to be paid equal money to the men who are doing the same job as myself .....but if those men had to spend twice as long in our office then I would expect them to be paid more than me for the extra hours they have put in.
Well said Rosie, you're not ugly and you're not a man, but you're clever !

delsa
09-20-2005, 03:12 PM
Just have the women play best three of five already, sheesh ;) :p
I agree. I'm curious to see how the female players would handle it.
I don't really care about this. I think they tried to make the right decision to encourage women's tennis to get better and show them they noticed its recent progress and still noticing them they still work less hard than the men and have to keep progressing in terms of level at the same time. They tried to make everybody happy, to be balanced. It's not the end of the world if the winner is paid 13 000 euros more.
I don't really know what to think about that. But there is much more to this polemic than only a will of fairness etc...Some overreact i think... in both camps.

uNIVERSE mAN
09-20-2005, 03:14 PM
Just have the women play best three of five already, sheesh ;) :p

Then we'll have to sit through even more shit!! I mean already we can barely wait for women's tennis match to be over and real tennis to start at the Slams. At the US Open you could feel it every single evening, the anticipation for the men's match. The "hurry up and finish so we can get on with it!" attitude to the women's match even from the networks. Every time the lower ranked player held serve mentally I'm thinking "damn it! that's another extra 5 mins!".

uNIVERSE mAN
09-20-2005, 03:16 PM
I agree. I'm curious to see how the female players would handle it.
I don't really care about this. I think they tried to make the right decision to encourage women's tennis to get better and show them they noticed its recent progress and still noticing them they still work less hard than the men and have to keep progressing in terms of level at the same time. They tried to make everybody happy, to be balanced. It's not the end of the world if the winner is paid 13 000 euros more.
I don't really know what to think about that. But there is much more to this polemic than only a will of fairness etc...Some overreact i think... in both camps.

I've always thought there should be two Slams one for the men and one for the women, like they do in every single other sport, this co-ed crap has got to stop, the men's tour is half financing the women.

*Ljubica*
09-20-2005, 03:28 PM
Well said Rosie, you're not ugly and you're not a man, but you're clever !

Thank you :hug: And from a personal point of view, I totally agree with uNIVERSE mAN and his "hurry up and fnish..........." ;) Whenever I'm at Wimbledon or Roland Garros I'm always amused by the number of people who use Womens' matches as an excuse to eat, go to the bathroom etc, and then go back to their court with unresevered seating with a grudging look on their faces just willing the WTA match to be over ASAP so they are in prime position for the mens' match afterwards!!!

*julie*
09-20-2005, 04:26 PM
EXACTLY!!!

its sooooooooooooooo funny that people here are sooooooooo seriously discussing the topics like they are going to win the prize with the ten thousand euro less that they cannot afford to pay the rent anymore!!! haha!

:lol: :yeah:

Neely
09-20-2005, 04:55 PM
Why the hell do some of you guys even care about prize money?! I mean, seriously, why the f-ck do you care? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Does it? This year at Roland Garros, Justine took home 867,000 Euro this year and Rafael Nadal took home 880,000. If Justine had gotten that extra 13,000 Euro, would your lives have fallen apart?
Well said! :yeah: Some people's lives would probably fall apart because they would have need to go and whine about something else :) :p

Seriously now... considering that the men have to win three sets at Grand Slams, I think the equal prize money is not justified from that perspective. But then again, the women are getting all the time for the rest of the season less prize money than the men despite playing best of three like the men mostly and well.... I could complain about worse things than equalling prize money for one gender which only takes a few thousand Euros anyway.

star
09-20-2005, 05:09 PM
I've always thought there should be two Slams one for the men and one for the women, like they do in every single other sport, this co-ed crap has got to stop, the men's tour is half financing the women.

I understand what you are saying, but having coedit is a marketing tool as well. If I have an opportunity to choose between going to a tournament that has men and women or one that has just men, I'll choose the tournament that has both sexes because although I enjoy the men's tennis more, it gives me the opportunity to see the women too.

I've seen some very exciting women's matches and they are some of my best memories of tennis. Even though I recognize the quality of the tennis wasn't as good as the men's, the matches were filled with drama and tension that entertained the whole crowd.

Paul Banks
09-20-2005, 05:49 PM
Equal price money??? What a tragedy. I mean, this is truly horrible. I wonder how I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Because, yes, how much money women will make at the French Open is really supposed to affect deeply our life.

Whistleway
09-20-2005, 05:52 PM
It has nothing to do with the number of sets etc. Bring on !! *Black eyes to Wimby*

LoveFifteen
09-20-2005, 06:47 PM
Rosie, I was wrong to state that all people against equal prize money were "physically unattractive, bitter men". Now I see that it's just physically unattractive, bitter people.

oneandonlyhsn
09-20-2005, 07:21 PM
Rosie, I was wrong to state that all people against equal prize money were "physically unattractive, bitter men". Now I see that it's just physically unattractive, bitter people.

Congratulations on winning the most enlightening post of the day :rolleyes:

tangerine_dream
09-20-2005, 07:31 PM
Rosie, I was wrong to state that all people against equal prize money were "physically unattractive, bitter men". Now I see that it's just physically unattractive, bitter people.
:lol:

BTW, the women's final at Wimbledon was more-bang-for-your-buck than the men's final. I'd say the girls would've deserved more money this year.

hablovah19
09-20-2005, 07:40 PM
:lol:

BTW, the women's final at Wimbledon was more-bang-for-your-buck than the men's final. I'd say the girls would've deserved more money this year.

:bowdown:

*Ljubica*
09-20-2005, 08:08 PM
Rosie, I was wrong to state that all people against equal prize money were "physically unattractive, bitter men". Now I see that it's just physically unattractive, bitter people.

Why thanks so much for your deeply insightful comments about the physical appearances and mental attributes of people here you have never met :rolleyes: I thought this thread was to discuss our views about equal pay for women in tennis - not to throw personal insults at strangers :rolleyes: I personally haven't got time to waste on such silliness - thank you and goodnight :wavey:

Lee
09-20-2005, 08:27 PM
"Women didn't spend as much time on court as men, thus shouldn't be paid the same amount of prize money."

Wow!!! I don't know tennis players are paid by the hour? And why the guy who won took more money than the loser, who spent as much time on court as well.

How about the time they spent in gym, practice courts, promotion, interview, etc. Does it count?

Scotso
09-20-2005, 08:53 PM
Andre won more than 500,000 at the US Open because he was 2nd place in the US Open series. I think he won around 825,000.

Why the hell do some of you guys even care about prize money?! I mean, seriously, why the f-ck do you care? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Does it? This year at Roland Garros, Justine took home 867,000 Euro this year and Rafael Nadal took home 880,000. If Justine had gotten that extra 13,000 Euro, would your lives have fallen apart?

Physically unattractive straight men are so pathetic ... always so mysoginistic and bitter.

*Great* post.

Sjengster
09-20-2005, 08:58 PM
I do hope you didn't agree with him solely by virtue of his last sentence.

Mechlan
09-20-2005, 09:00 PM
GWH's post puts it excellently. It's not about time spent on the court, it's about how much revenue the women bring in compared to the men. If women's tennis brings in as much money as men's tennis, yes, they fully deserve equal pay. You can make the argument that women's tennis is as popular as men's tennis, but let's face it - the average prize at most WTA events is less than that of ATP events. The amount of revenue from sponsors and advertisements is less. Sadly, this is a business, and until there are some tangible figures that prove that the women are as big a draw as the men, equal prize money shouldn't be in the cards.

dkw
09-20-2005, 10:40 PM
This is a tough dilemma.

Seems to me, if you’re going to come up with a compensation package for the players at any Grand Slam it would have to be based on the merits of their respective segment because the reality is you’re dealing with two different sports. One based on five sets the other on three.

That said, the easy argument that men play more so they should be paid more, quickly gets tossed out the window for the simple reason that women’s matches can and have lasted longer than men’s. So the questions you’re left with revolve around the quality of competition.

Ø Are the matches between the women as good as the men? (However you want to define good… skill, drama, intrigue, etc.).
Ø Do they draw an equal crowd / viewership / sponsorship

I don’t know about the French or the AO and Wimbledon for that matter of fact. But the women definitely deserve equal pay at the US Open based on the mere fact that their final is in a prime time slot. It wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t interesting. And by being on in the late evening I would think it’s generating much higher advertising dollars as well as greater exposure for the US Open tournament and the sport in general. Thus the women deserve their cut.

So using the same logic, maybe representatives for the female players have been able to prove (with hard numbers) that the Ladies Final does indeed generate just as much interest as the men, hence the women are deserving of equal pay for this particular match.

Action Jackson
09-21-2005, 04:45 AM
GWH's post puts it excellently. It's not about time spent on the court, it's about how much revenue the women bring in compared to the men. If women's tennis brings in as much money as men's tennis, yes, they fully deserve equal pay. You can make the argument that women's tennis is as popular as men's tennis, but let's face it - the average prize at most WTA events is less than that of ATP events. The amount of revenue from sponsors and advertisements is less. Sadly, this is a business, and until there are some tangible figures that prove that the women are as big a draw as the men, equal prize money shouldn't be in the cards.

Thanks for that and someone gets it and it's just a PC decision. If they bring in equal revenue which is highly doubtful for all the reasons that I have stated, then equal prizemoney wouldn't be a problem.

Experimentee
09-21-2005, 01:54 PM
As a matter of interest, why do you assume that everyone who is against equal prize money is an "unattractive straight man" - who is "pathetic.........mysoginistic and bitter"? I am a straight woman (whether I am attractive or not is not for me to say!), - and I don't agree with it at all. I am not going to go into all my arguments - they've been said before in other threads on this subject, and GWH put them very well in his long post on the first page of this thread - but it's a vast generalisation to say that all the people who dislike WTA or don't agree with equal prize money are from one particular section of society. Yes - I am a feminist to a certain extent, yes I studied hard to gain my degree and expect to be paid equal money to the men who are doing the same job as myself .....but if those men had to spend twice as long in our office then I would expect them to be paid more than me for the extra hours they have put in.

Its not always the case though that mens matches are longer than womens, and thats besides the point, because the main work in tennis is the training and preparation that goes into it. Men and women both work and train as hard as each other in order to be ready for the tournament, and so they should be paid equally for it.

And yes I agree that there are people who use womens matches as an excuse to go get lunch or whatever, but I know as many people who only watch womens tennis and use the mens matches to do something else.

revolution
09-21-2005, 03:21 PM
The longer the match it is, the more they should be paid, regardless of gender.

delsa
09-21-2005, 05:48 PM
Thanks for that and someone gets it and it's just a PC decision. If they bring in equal revenue which is highly doubtful for all the reasons that I have stated, then equal prizemoney wouldn't be a problem.
Of course it's a PC decision. But sometimes this kind of decisions are needed.
As i said, it was decision where they didn't take to much of an engagement and tried to please everybody to stop hearing complains etc...and still show a sign they realized women's tennis has progressed.
I think they tried to make the right decision to encourage women's tennis to get better and show them they noticed its recent progress and still noticing them they still work less hard than the men and have to keep progressing in terms of level at the same time. They tried to make everybody happy, to be balanced. It's not the end of the world if the winner is paid 13 000 euros more.

LoveFifteen
09-21-2005, 08:54 PM
The longer the match it is, the more they should be paid, regardless of gender.

That makes absolutely no sense. :retard:

The better you are, the faster you end your matches ...

tangerine_dream
09-22-2005, 07:59 PM
Sadly, this is a business, and until there are some tangible figures that prove that the women are as big a draw as the men, equal prize money shouldn't be in the cards.

Net Improvement?
The strange evolution of women's tennis
By June Thomas
Aug. 27, 2001

In 1973, New York Times reporter Grace Lichtenstein wrote A Long Way Baby, tennis's first "season on the tour" chronicle. The highlight of the book—and of the season—was Billie Jean King's "Battle of the Sexes" with Bobby Riggs—a carnival-like match between a 29-year-old star and a 55-year-old clown that brought more attention to the women's game than years of political agitation and athletic achievement. In many ways, Lichtenstein was ahead of her time: She served up some eye-popping behind-the-scenes scandal—drugs, sex, gluttony—but because women's tennis was still an athletic backwater, no one paid much attention.

Fast-forward 27 years to the 2000 season chronicled by Sports Illustrated's L. Jon Wertheim in his new book Venus Envy. Women's tennis, by far the most lucrative women's professional sport, now enjoys record attendance levels and TV audiences that compare favorably with the NHL's. Polls show that more than 75 percent of tennis fans favor the women's game over the men's. In other words, the market is ripe for a juicy tennis tell-all. But while the game has become more popular, it has also become—horror of horrors for the thrill-seeking reader—squeaky clean.

rest of article here:
http://well-traveled.com/id/114267