So Much For Equal Pay! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

So Much For Equal Pay!

AsGoodAsNew
06-19-2006, 07:28 PM
On the BBC this morning there was a debate about equal pay at Wimbledon for men and women - again. But guess what, it took a long time before the presenters and any caler could name the winner of last year's women's title at Wimbledon!

So a woman can win a Grand Slam playing only 14 sets. That will never happen in the men's game. Equal pay should mean equal effort. And until the quarter finals, it is NOT equal effort!

Deboogle!.
06-19-2006, 07:30 PM
omg, not this again.

R.Federer
06-19-2006, 08:31 PM
There should be a "refresher course" for all new denizens of MTF (I know I could have used one-- but I lurked here for 2 years before posting).... this topic has been beaten to death before :)

Anyhow, to come to the point, its easy to remember most Wimbledon champions on the men's side. You just have to pick a name like Borg, Sampras or Federer and you are VERY likely to be correct... women's side is far deeper.

hoobSD
06-19-2006, 09:49 PM
Of course they can win it in 14 sets...

Convenient retire, anyone? :devil:

Scarlett
06-19-2006, 10:54 PM
Tessa Jowell has apparently written a letter about it saying how concerned she is about the gender gap in pay. But I look at this way - the winner of the women's tournament still walks away with £625,000, compared to the £655,000 for the men. That's still a huge amount of money. Personally I think the debate should be more about the obscene earnings of people who play sports. (Of course, I am just jealous, being a poorly paid teacher, who has just spent the last week and a half solidly marking AS exam papers just to earn a pathetic £700 :) )

revolution
06-19-2006, 10:56 PM
The current state of pay is not right, as men should be paid far more.

DrJules
06-19-2006, 10:56 PM
On the BBC this morning there was a debate about equal pay at Wimbledon for men and women - again. But guess what, it took a long time before the presenters and any caler could name the winner of last year's women's title at Wimbledon.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: A lot of people a trying to forget Venus Williams won Wimbledon last year.

Timariot
06-19-2006, 11:04 PM
So a woman can win a Grand Slam playing only 14 sets. That will never happen in the men's game. Equal pay should mean equal effort. And until the quarter finals, it is NOT equal effort!

So in other words, marathon runner should be paid shitloads of more prize money than 100 metre sprinters.

Ever wonder why this does not seem to be the case?

Rafa = Fed Killa
06-19-2006, 11:12 PM
If the marathon runner runs faster and longer than the sprinter, then yes the marathon runner should get paid more.

Ie. If someone does the same work better than me and works longer than me then he or she should make more money than me.

Timariot
06-19-2006, 11:23 PM
Ie. If someone does the same work better than me and works longer than me then he or she should make more money than me.

Hint: pro sports isn't work - it's entertainment. If women are viewed as more entertaining than men, then they should be paid more, because they are getting their job (ie. entertaining) than the men. Simple as that.

Blazed
06-19-2006, 11:40 PM
So in other words, marathon runner should be paid shitloads of more prize money than 100 metre sprinters.

Ever wonder why this does not seem to be the case?

Exactly.

Hawkman
06-19-2006, 11:54 PM
This debate has raged for eon's it seem's. This year it show's:

Gentlemen: 655,000
Ladies: 625,000

A $30,000 difference ? I have to admit, not playing as many set's is the deciding factor for me.

(I wouldn't cry if they made the same as it is, but the argument against it seem's logical) It isn't like the ladies are getting ***** on the deal.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/suffrage/nwp/images/nwp_home.jpg

robrulz5
06-20-2006, 12:22 AM
Henin-Hardenne set the women's push to get equal prize money back a long way at the AO.

helen phillips
06-20-2006, 12:32 AM
On the BBC this morning there was a debate about equal pay at Wimbledon for men and women - again. But guess what, it took a long time before the presenters and any caler could name the winner of last year's women's title at Wimbledon!

So a woman can win a Grand Slam playing only 14 sets. That will never happen in the men's game. Equal pay should mean equal effort. And until the quarter finals, it is NOT equal effort!


If effort were the criteria for payment I can think of a quite a few guys who should have returned their Roland Garros checks. Lucky for them effort, like time on court, is not a consideration in the distribution of prize money in tennis.

helen phillips
06-20-2006, 12:39 AM
Henin-Hardenne set the women's push to get equal prize money back a long way at the AO.

Women already get equal prize money at the Australian. Henin set her own credibility back - just the sight of her infuriates me. Nalby and the boys with their rash of defaults in the late stages of Roland Garros didn't do the tournament or the game any favours.

Tennis Fool
06-20-2006, 01:26 AM
If the marathon runner runs faster and longer than the sprinter, then yes the marathon runner should get paid more.

Ie. If someone does the same work better than me and works longer than me then he or she should make more money than me.
By that reasoning, we should clock the matches. If a women's match involves a longer time on court than a men's match, the women should be paid more.

elang
06-20-2006, 01:27 AM
If you think about it, there's no fairness at all. Don't you think the event orgnizer makes much more money than any players? How about the government? The British government charge Aggassi tax for some kind of advertisement actually not paid in UK. Is it fair? How much effort the government offer during the matches?

If we want to be fair, why don't just let women play with men? If they can win, they win the money. Is it fair or unfair?

Tennis Fool
06-20-2006, 01:29 AM
This debate has raged for eon's it seem's. This year it show's:

Gentlemen: 655,000
Ladies: 625,000

A $30,000 difference ? I have to admit, not playing as many set's is the deciding factor for me.

(I wouldn't cry if they made the same as it is, but the argument against it seem's logical) It isn't like the ladies are getting ***** on the deal.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/suffrage/nwp/images/nwp_home.jpg
Exactly. Wertheim and I have been advocating men's best of three for years now. :p

Tennis Fool
06-20-2006, 01:32 AM
If you think about it, there's no fairness at all. Don't you think the event orgnizer makes much more money than any players? How about the government? The British government charge Aggassi tax for some kind of advertisement actually not paid in UK. Is it fair? How much effort the government offer during the matches?

If we want to be fair, why don't just let women play with men? If they can win, they win the money. Is it fair or unfair?
I don't know why I got involved in this thread. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Women aren't built like men, but that doesn't mean they aren't putting out the same amount of effort.

Tennis Fool
06-20-2006, 01:34 AM
Henin-Hardenne set the women's push to get equal prize money back a long way at the AO.
You could say that same of any Slam final where Fed's opponent isn't Nadal. Isn't this the clown era of the ATP?

R.Federer
06-20-2006, 01:38 AM
Ie. If someone does the same work better than me and works longer than me then he or she should make more money than me.
If someone does the same work as you and takes LESS time, they should be commended for it and get a pay raise, not be penalized! Read back what you wrote and see if it makes sense
People who get the job done faster are more efficient, not less!

Tennis Fool
06-20-2006, 01:44 AM
but I lurked here for 2 years before posting
:eek: What made you come out of the bushes? (I've always wondered about our "guests")...

R.Federer
06-20-2006, 01:49 AM
:eek: What made you come out of the bushes? (I've always wondered about our "guests")...
WTA (where I was registered) became dismal..... :)

Johnny Groove
06-20-2006, 01:52 AM
Isn't this the clown era of the ATP?
No, every era has its clowns ;)

R.Federer
06-20-2006, 01:52 AM
Henin-Hardenne set the women's push to get equal prize money back a long way at the AO.
All that money that a winner/finalist earns is not for the final. It is for the cumulative matches over 2 weeks, usually 7 matches
While it was disappointing not to get a final, its probably unjust to project the spectators' disappointment onto a player's bad sportsmanship. She's injured, she will care about her body (especially after being sidelined for months due to injury/sickness problems). Players retire during slams, it happens; it doesn't mean their pay should get thrown out the windows.
That's the risk the spectators take when they buy tickets.

Hawkman
06-20-2006, 01:53 AM
It is a silly argument for many reason's. Not only do the women not want to go 5 (Can you imagine Hingis and Justine going 5 Hour's?) but I say let them have half based on the draw alone.

Tennis Fool
06-20-2006, 01:55 AM
No, every era has its clowns ;)
Now that would be a thread worth reading. The clowns in the Open era :p