Roland Garros & Wimbledon to pay equal prize money [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roland Garros & Wimbledon to pay equal prize money

Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Naranoc
02-22-2007, 09:22 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6385295.stm

Wimbledon pays equal prize money

Mauresmo earned £30,000 less than the men's champion
The Wimbledon Championships will hand women and men equal prize money for the first time at this year's tournament.
The announcement due at 1100 GMT by the All England Club, brings it into line with other Grand Slams after criticism from the WTA and leading women players.

Similar to the US and Australian Opens, equal rewards will be offered across the board, from the champions down to the first-round losers in all events.

The French Open only offers the same cheque to the champions.

The All England Club has previously defended the difference by saying that women had best-of-three-set matches while the men had best-of-five contests.

Three-times Wimbledon champion John McEnroe backed the change.

"I think when you've got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay," he told the Daily Telegraph.

"It would be setting an example to the rest of society in general to have equal prize money.

"There's probably no other sport, and very few professions in this world, where a woman can earn as much as a man."



Arguably only a matter of time before they made the decision.

scoobs
02-22-2007, 09:38 AM
I don't care what the merits of this decision are, it was the right thing to do because it was time this whole silly argument went away so the focus could be on the tennis and the sport, not this great big annual fuss over prize money that overshadowed so many good things.

doublebackhand
02-22-2007, 09:43 AM
kudos to the organizers but also it made all the previous reluctance/resistance look very silly now.

adee-gee
02-22-2007, 09:45 AM
Horrendous decision.

t0x
02-22-2007, 10:00 AM
If women played the same amount as men, I would definatley be all up for equal pay.

But I think it's now unfair on the men who have to get through best of 5 matches only to earn the same as the women who play best of 3.

Allstar
02-22-2007, 10:03 AM
Absolutely disgraceful decision. Pathetic to give into the unfounded pressure of the moaners.

oz_boz
02-22-2007, 10:04 AM
Good decision.

The men getting more for playing best of five seems like a weak argument. Some marathon organizers give equal prize money to men and women and that is unfair because the women have to run 20 minutes longer? One way of solving it would be to clock the matches and finish them after two hours. But then, would Federer deserve more money than Mauresmo because Nadal is a tougher opponent than Henin-Hardenne?

It's obvious that a simple comparison like that can't be made, the men's and women's game are too different.

Neely
02-22-2007, 10:12 AM
ATP and WTA in the Grand Slam events are playing during the same time at the same venue and have pretty much the same audience because it's very hard to keep exactly track about that as it is a combined event. If you are buying a ticket for a Grand Slam (with a few exceptions like on finals/semifinals days), you usually don't specify any closer if you want to see WTA or ATP action. I think this is also responsable for why it came that far that equal prize money is given despite the fact that the men are required to work a lot more for their wins than the women. Okay, now give them the 30000 pounds more which was only a smybolic difference anyway and move on.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 10:13 AM
Rubbish decision, but this is no surprise.

oz_boz
02-22-2007, 10:28 AM
Rubbish decision

Why?

Allstar
02-22-2007, 10:29 AM
Why?

Because men bring in more fans and more revenue

oz_boz
02-22-2007, 10:34 AM
Because men bring in more fans and more revenue

I thought that had changed since Kournikova's heydays.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 10:34 AM
Why?

I have explained this enough times, but think about the respective tours as stand alone products. We all know the men generate more revenue through sponsorship, TV rights, advertising and the like and this is reflected by the greater prizemoney on their tour, if this was not the case, then the WTA would be as rich, or slightly less, when in reality there is a clear difference.

I'll put it another way. When there is a music tour with 2 big bands, there is one support band and the main band. Both are included in the ticket prices, but both don't get the same money, if the women were the main act, then they should be playing the final on Sundays, but they aren't and don't.

Ariadne
02-22-2007, 10:36 AM
Despite being female, I am unhappy at the decision. Equality and equity are two distinct concepts and I certainly do not consider equal pay for women players to be equitable.

I have argued topics such as these to death and I will not pursue such a course of action this time around since arguments on message boards are inherently useless and unproductive. At least this issue is finally at an end, whatever the merits and demirits of it's resolution.

oz_boz
02-22-2007, 10:36 AM
I have explained this enough times, but think about the respective tours as stand alone products. We all know the men generate more revenue through sponsorship, TV rights, advertising and the like and this is reflected by the greater prizemoney on their tour, if this was not the case, then the WTA would be as rich, or slightly less, when in reality there is a clear difference.

I'll put it another way. When there is a music tour with 2 big bands, there is one support band and the main band. Both are included in the ticket prices, but both don't get the same money, if the women were the main act, then they should be playing the final on Sundays, but they aren't and don't.

As I said, I thought the revenue difference had changed after the Kournikova marketing boom.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 10:40 AM
As I said, I thought the revenue difference had changed after the Kournikova marketing boom.

How could it have changed that much, where the women bring in more. I mean look at the amount of $ 1m+ events on the ATP and how many on the WTA, that alone should make it clear.

Hugh Jaas
02-22-2007, 10:40 AM
Because men bring in more fans and more revenue

Women play best of 3, men play best of 5

women get 15 breaks off court during very hot temperatures for a reason unknown to me(makeup replenishment?). men do not.

Equal PAY for equal PLAY.

I NEVER SEE WOMEN MARATHON RUNNERS running half as much as the men so why do they have to treated differently at the GS tournaments??!?

i think that AO/RG/W/USO still see women not as serious athletes but sideshow sex objects that are more suited to the kitchen than the centre court .

pathetic really.

nisha
02-22-2007, 10:43 AM
i dont know what to think. women dont play as much as men nor is it harder.

nobama
02-22-2007, 11:59 AM
If women played the same amount as men, I would definatley be all up for equal pay.

But I think it's now unfair on the men who have to get through best of 5 matches only to earn the same as the women who play best of 3.So if Fed went through a slam not dropping a set and the womens champ went through the slam dropping one set each match would you still say Fed deserved more $$? Players aren't paid by how many sets they have to play or how long they're on court. And being on court longer doesn't mean it's better tennis or the customer is getting more value for their money. I'm glad Wimbledon ended it because the pay difference was so small anyway. My issue with equal pay is that the prize money for women is a lot less then men on the regular tour. This year the WTA has 58 events and the total prize money is $34.4M. The ATP has 63 events with total prize money of $61.2M. If the women truly are equal why is there such a difference in prize money between the tours?

Allstar
02-22-2007, 12:23 PM
It should have nothing to do with the sets they play. They provide a different spectacle and service. Best of 5 sets may make men's tennis more attractive but longer hours shouldnt mean more pay because they are different jobs in reality.

The reason men deserve more is because they provide a service which is higher in demand

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 12:25 PM
Pathetic decision, the only single tradition that was worthy of keeping has been removed! Wimbledon gets worse again and again. They gave in and pussyed out! What a joke.

yakuzaninja
02-22-2007, 12:44 PM
What a joke.

So someone like Canas and Hewitt could play each other at SW19 and end up battling to the death in over five hours say and get the same as Sharapova walloping some no hoper 6-1 6-1 in less than half an hour.

No sense.

Wimbledon you have bowed to political correctness and for that I am disappointed.

yakuzaninja
02-22-2007, 12:49 PM
So if Fed went through a slam not dropping a set and the womens champ went through the slam dropping one set each match would you still say Fed deserved more $$? Players aren't paid by how many sets they have to play or how long they're on court. And being on court longer doesn't mean it's better tennis or the customer is getting more value for their money. I'm glad Wimbledon ended it because the pay difference was so small anyway. My issue with equal pay is that the prize money for women is a lot less then men on the regular tour. This year the WTA has 58 events and the total prize money is $34.4M. The ATP has 63 events with total prize money of $61.2M. If the women truly are equal why is there such a difference in prize money between the tours?

Because they aren't equal, they are inferior by a long, long way.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 12:52 PM
Because they aren't equal, they are inferior by a long, long way.

It's not like it has been any different, but the WTA have done a great deal.

Seneca
02-22-2007, 12:54 PM
Well, considering that Wimbledon is the one Slam in which the quality of womens' matches is the closest to that of men, this decision isn't such a travesty.

But overall men's matches and ATP Tour seem to generate more buzz and revenue. I'd hate to see some Slam having to struggle financially because they need to pay artificially high prizes for the women.

What next? Equal prize money for doubles and mixed doubles?

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 12:58 PM
Because they aren't equal, they are inferior by a long, long way.

You nailed mr Yaka, they are inferior in many ways such as fitness, skill, standard of play, money generated, duration of competition! What a disgraceful decision to pussy out to these whiners.

oz_boz
02-22-2007, 01:33 PM
It should have nothing to do with the sets they play. They provide a different spectacle and service. Best of 5 sets may make men's tennis more attractive but longer hours shouldnt mean more pay because they are different jobs in reality.

The reason men deserve more is because they provide a service which is higher in demand

Well said, the more pay for more play argument is BS.

I said in an earlier post that I liked the decision but after reading the revenue figures for the ATP and WTA I am not so convinced anymore.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 01:35 PM
Well said, the more pay for more play argument is BS.

I said in an earlier post that I liked the decision but after reading the revenue figures for the ATP and WTA I am not so convinced anymore.

For me it's never been about the sets they play. I mean at best they could have the womens final best of 5 sets, but it wouldn't be practical to fit into the program.

zicofirol
02-22-2007, 01:38 PM
Horrendous decision.

yes, stupid decision, too bad the wimbledon organizers didnt have the balls to say it like it is: "the men pull in more money, they get more share of the prize money"...

Three-times Wimbledon champion John McEnroe backed the change.

"I think when you've got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay," he told the Daily Telegraph.

"It would be setting an example to the rest of society in general to have equal prize money.

"There's probably no other sport, and very few professions in this world, where a woman can earn as much as a man."
Setting an example for the rest of society? that just because you are a women you must get paid equally, regardless of production, oh, then lets pay women's soccer players the same as the men, pay the wnba players the same as the nba players etc...

gotta love the argument of sexual equality that eliminates an objective standard by which these figures are determined... stupid stupid stupid...

kapranos
02-22-2007, 01:39 PM
Honestly if we would pay women for what they are worth, they would make 25% of men. The argument that they shouldn't give equal price when there is about 5% of difference is silly.

Either pay them the same, or pay them for what they're really worth. The 'I pay women slighly less' is embarrassing and does have a sexist connotation even if it isn't a sexist decision.

zicofirol
02-22-2007, 01:47 PM
BTW, the sets played has nothing to do with it, bad argument to use, its about production, which in tennis means how much money each tourn brings to the tournament, that is the bottom line.
Ill use this simple but easy analogy, if a guy sitting in a lawn mower can cut 5 times as much grass as 1 guy with a machete can, who gets more money? the guy in the tractor, and who puts in the most work, the guy doing it by hand... its all about the value and production of the work.

And this is a matter of principle, because we have an objective standard to define the value of work, and by stupid policies it is being removed...

baubaby
02-22-2007, 01:54 PM
Marat Safin Aus Open 2004 run to Final:
R128 Vahaly, Brian (USA) 84 6-2 3-6 6-3 6-4
R64 Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN) 37 7-6(5) 6-4 4-6 6-4
R32 Martin, Todd (USA) 66 7-5 1-6 4-6 6-0 7-5
R16 Blake, James (USA) 39 7-6(3) 6-3 6-7(6) 6-3
Q Roddick, Andy (USA) 1 2-6 6-3 7-5 6-7 6-4
S Agassi, Andre (USA) 4 7-6(6) 7-6(6) 5-7 1-6 6-3
F Federer, Roger (SUI) 2 6-7(3) 4-6 2-6

Amelie Mauresmo 2006 Aus Open Title run
R128 SUN, TIANTIAN CHN 4-6 6-2 6-2
R64 LOIT, EMILIE FRA 7-6(1) 6-2
R32 KRAJICEK, MICHAELLA NED W 6-2 ret.
R16 VAIDISOVA, NICOLE CZE W 6-1 6-1
Q SCHNYDER, PATTY SUI W 6-3 6-0
S CLIJSTERS, KIM BEL W 5-7 6-2 3-2 ret.
F HENIN-HARDENNE, JUSTINE BEL W 6-1 2-0 ret.

To quote Johnny Mac: "You CAN'T be serious!" How is this fair to the men? Have we become so pc that we can't think reasonably. Not to mention the TV revenue of a 3 to 4 hour men's final vs a 45 minute Womens chokefest final where one competitor can't cope with the moment(How many times have we seen this?)....IMO it is almost two different sports. I've personally witnessed training sessions where a 15 year old advanced junior boy has to hold back in hitting sessions and drills with a Top 15 Womens pro.

The sacrifice and work ethic that a male player has to put into make it and maintain a top ranking is incredible. Contrast this with just a few short years ago where you had a Women's top ten loaded with overweight players.. Think about it? Davenport, Seles, Pierce and Capriati were at times 20 to 30 lbs out of shape while ranked in the top ten...., You can't crack the top 700 in the mens game with that kind of comittment.......anyway there's my rant....:(

kapranos
02-22-2007, 02:06 PM
Yeah but there is absolutely no rational justification to pay women 'almost as much' as men. Either you pay them for what they're worth with objectives measure (like comparing Tier I pay vs Masters series pay), or you pay them the same.

qczi
02-22-2007, 02:06 PM
equal money to men, women, mixed doubles, juniors and wheelchair players and peace on earth :rocker: (or just drop the whole wta stuff and let sharapova, kirilenko and hantuchova play some exhibition matches during slams)

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 02:10 PM
Honestly if we would pay women for what they are worth, they would make 25% of men.


Yes! Even before the decision, women were getting paid too much. Christ, I don't know what is with these women who want the equal prize money. I mean, any sensible woman would know they don't deserve as much, not some feminist joker or some pussy who has caved in to them. They have to think in the big picture, and not what is the ideal situation for them.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 02:11 PM
Shouldn't the blind, 1 arm and 1 legged tennis players get equal prize money.

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 02:14 PM
Shouldn't the blind, 1 arm and 1 legged tennis players get equal prize money.

So should little Jeffrey who plays his career on the futures circuit.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 02:16 PM
So should little Jeffrey who plays his career on the futures circuit.

Yes, of course. Josh Olivas deserves as much as any WTA player.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 02:16 PM
Shouldn't the blind, 1 arm and 1 legged tennis players get equal prize money.

I agree, Xristos deserve equal prize money.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 02:18 PM
Xristos deserves more money than Sharapova and Federer combined.

scarecrows
02-22-2007, 02:21 PM
To quote Johnny Mac: "You CAN'T be serious!" How is this fair to the men? Have we become so pc that we can't think reasonably. Not to mention the TV revenue of a 3 to 4 hour men's final vs a 45 minute Womens chokefest final where one competitor can't cope with the moment(How many times have we seen this?)....IMO it is almost two different sports. I've personally witnessed training sessions where a 15 year old advanced junior boy has to hold back in hitting sessions and drills with a Top 15 Womens pro.

The sacrifice and work ethic that a male player has to put into make it and maintain a top ranking is incredible. Contrast this with just a few short years ago where you had a Women's top ten loaded with overweight players.. Think about it? Davenport, Seles, Pierce and Capriati were at times 20 to 30 lbs out of shape while ranked in the top ten...., You can't crack the top 700 in the mens game with that kind of comittment.......anyway there's my rant....:(

good point there :yeah:

although I believe JMac said 'You CANNOT be serious ' :D

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 02:25 PM
good point there :yeah:

although I believe JMac said 'You CANNOT be serious ' :D

Mcenroe is just another one who backed down, "I think when you've got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay," he told the Daily Telegraph.

Shrinking Violet
02-22-2007, 02:27 PM
It's a stupid decision. The only benefit of it is that we won't have to hear the stupid whining every year about 'we deserve equal prize-money.'

The product on show does not merit having the same pay as the men and I'm not sure if there's many people who would, if given a choice, would choose to watch a WTA match ovet an ATP match. At least it will shut them up now but it's a daft decision.

Sunset of Age
02-22-2007, 02:28 PM
I NEVER SEE WOMEN MARATHON RUNNERS running half as much as the men so why do they have to treated differently at the GS tournaments??!?

i think that AO/RG/W/USO still see women not as serious athletes but sideshow sex objects that are more suited to the kitchen than the centre court .

pathetic really.

Good point - I think you're hitting the nail on the head with the remark that the tennis PTB don't consider the women as serious athletes - and sadly enough, a lot of the women seem to agree with this themselves, looking at the way they are being marketed as sex symbols rather than as true athletes. What's all that fuzz about how they dress, which ear rings they wear, etc...? :devil:

Even more - the ladies that DO look like 'true athletes' are often getting bashed for that fact as 'not looking like a real woman' (whatever that may be! :rolleyes: ) - Amélie is a good example of this. One of the reasons I'm a fan or hers, BTW.

With marathon runners, it's obviously different - they make the same distance as the men, and rightly so! Also, it's hardly possible to market a female marathon runner as a sex symbol, regarding the fact that nearly all sexually appealing parts of a woman are absent with them - all muscle and tendons, no fat at all... very different than with, say, Serena Williams (though I can hardly imagine her as a sex symbol, :angel: ).

Key point is indeed: Same payment for the same achievement.
Well, with Mr. Disney cutting down the 5-sets matches to best-of-three matches like the ladies play, who know what will happen in the future... :cool:

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 02:29 PM
Well, with Mr. Disney cutting down the 5-sets matches to best-of-three matches like the ladies play, who know what will happen in the future... :cool:

Disney does not run the Slams.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 02:31 PM
The product on show does not merit having the same pay as the men and I'm not sure if there's many people who would, if given a choice, would choose to watch a WTA match ovet an ATP match. At least it will shut them up now but it's a daft decision.

Actually I remember at the US Open Williams x 2 vs Seles - MF Fernandez was completely packed on Amstrong while on Ashe it was man vs man and it was almost completely empty.

You can't deny womens tennis have waves of popularity, but it's an extremely fragile sport. If there are no stars like the Williams or Kournikova, the popularity of the sport fall apart. But when there are stars it IS extremely popular.

Sunset of Age
02-22-2007, 02:32 PM
Disney does not run the Slams.

Yeah, I should have realized that when I posted that.
But it will perhaps be brought further in the discussion, that when the men start to play as a rule best-of-threes instead of best-of-fives, that it is another argument for the women to ask for the same payment.

Ah, I gather I don't make a lot of sense here! ;)

scoobs
02-22-2007, 02:33 PM
Logically speaking this is a bad decision.

From the point of view of the publicity, the emotional core of the argument and the endless debate this argument has generated year in year out and detracted from the sport itself, this is absolutely the right thing to do.

oz_boz
02-22-2007, 02:39 PM
Marat Safin Aus Open 2004 run to Final:
R128 Vahaly, Brian (USA) 84 6-2 3-6 6-3 6-4
R64 Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN) 37 7-6(5) 6-4 4-6 6-4
R32 Martin, Todd (USA) 66 7-5 1-6 4-6 6-0 7-5
R16 Blake, James (USA) 39 7-6(3) 6-3 6-7(6) 6-3
Q Roddick, Andy (USA) 1 2-6 6-3 7-5 6-7 6-4
S Agassi, Andre (USA) 4 7-6(6) 7-6(6) 5-7 1-6 6-3
F Federer, Roger (SUI) 2 6-7(3) 4-6 2-6

Amelie Mauresmo 2006 Aus Open Title run
R128 SUN, TIANTIAN CHN 4-6 6-2 6-2
R64 LOIT, EMILIE FRA 7-6(1) 6-2
R32 KRAJICEK, MICHAELLA NED W 6-2 ret.
R16 VAIDISOVA, NICOLE CZE W 6-1 6-1
Q SCHNYDER, PATTY SUI W 6-3 6-0
S CLIJSTERS, KIM BEL W 5-7 6-2 3-2 ret.
F HENIN-HARDENNE, JUSTINE BEL W 6-1 2-0 ret.

To quote Johnny Mac: "You CAN'T be serious!" How is this fair to the men? Have we become so pc that we can't think reasonably. Not to mention the TV revenue of a 3 to 4 hour men's final vs a 45 minute Womens chokefest final where one competitor can't cope with the moment(How many times have we seen this?)....IMO it is almost two different sports. I've personally witnessed training sessions where a 15 year old advanced junior boy has to hold back in hitting sessions and drills with a Top 15 Womens pro.

The sacrifice and work ethic that a male player has to put into make it and maintain a top ranking is incredible. Contrast this with just a few short years ago where you had a Women's top ten loaded with overweight players.. Think about it? Davenport, Seles, Pierce and Capriati were at times 20 to 30 lbs out of shape while ranked in the top ten...., You can't crack the top 700 in the mens game with that kind of comittment.......anyway there's my rant....:(

Bullshit argument. Women's and men's sports can't be compared that way, hence don't try to defend more pay with more play.

The sport who most people want to watch is the one that should pay the most. Otherwise it is like trying to defend that Colin Montgomerie should make a tenth of the money that Paula Radcliffe earns.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 02:42 PM
His comparison isn't honest anyway, he should have compared Mauresmo win with Fed win and not Safin.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 04:07 PM
That's ridiculous.

Deboogle!.
02-22-2007, 04:18 PM
Welcome to the 21st Century, Wimbledon. I see many of our MTF posters are still stuck in 1965.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 04:19 PM
Oh people are absolutely ridiculous, so what women are getting paid the same in a sport, cry me a river, that doesn't take away how much the men make. Before I read all these arguments against it, i was pretty much leaning toward well i see how that is a little off, but now because of all the insanity around it, I'm glad they did it.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 04:20 PM
Welcome to the 21st Century, Wimbledon. I see many of our MTF posters are still stuck in 1965.

Good to see you believe in providing subsidies to a weaker organisation.

tangerine_dream
02-22-2007, 04:22 PM
Three-times Wimbledon champion John McEnroe backed the change.
"I think when you've got men and women playing at the same tournament, it is ludicrous to have a difference in pay," he told the Daily Telegraph.
I see JohnnyMac has changed his tune over the years. :haha: Nothing rehabilitates a former chauvinistic pig better than having daughters of his own. :)

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 04:25 PM
Wimbledon resigned the position of last bastion of reason.

tangerine_dream
02-22-2007, 04:27 PM
The product on show does not merit having the same pay as the men and I'm not sure if there's many people who would, if given a choice, would choose to watch a WTA match ovet an ATP match. At least it will shut them up now but it's a daft decision.
For the past few years the women's Wimbledon final have been just as exciting, if not more so, than the men's final.

Deboogle!.
02-22-2007, 04:29 PM
Good to see you believe in providing subsidies to a weaker organisation.that's your subjective opinion that it's weaker. I disagree whole-heartedly.

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 04:32 PM
Good to see you believe in providing subsidies to a weaker organisation.

1965 was the good times George? When women actually knew their place, instead of being delusional and thinking they deserve equal pay. Many of these female players, and females involved have got too big for their boots. It’s as much the wimps who caved in to these women, as the women whiners their selves.

Hugh Jaas
02-22-2007, 04:32 PM
Wimbledon resigned the position of last bastion of reason.

what multi couloued unifoms are now allowed.....?

Maybe the women can play best of 5 now? of course not because most of the WTA are teenage baseline robots and the rule would wipe out half of them out in one day whilst the true athletes go on (williams sistes, mauresmo e.t.c) to win the compitition without any bother.


get with times, its now2007 wimbledon/ us open/ Ronald garros/ australian open. stop subsidising women's tennis and let them have equal PAY for EQUAL PLAY

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 04:33 PM
that's your subjective opinion that it's weaker. I disagree whole-heartedly.

Thats not an opinion, its a 100 % fact, and there is no way of disputing it, anyway you look at it.

Deboogle!.
02-22-2007, 04:33 PM
1965 was the good times George? When women actually knew their place, instead of being delusional and thinking they deserve equal pay. Many of these female players, and females involved have got too big for their boots. It’s as much the wimps who caved in to these women, as the women whiners their selves.holy shit.Thats not an opinion, its a 100 % fact, and there is no way of disputing it, anyway you look at it.:haha: :haha: :haha: Right, okay :haha: Talk to ESPN about who they'd rather show, about who makes them money and who brings in viewers. You all have unilaterally decided that the only determinative factor should be the amount of sets played. You have no authority to claim that as fact that proves women deserve less money at the same event and then have the audacity to tell me I can't dispute that. You kidding me?

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 04:35 PM
that's your subjective opinion that it's weaker. I disagree whole-heartedly.

How is subjective? When the facts clearly illustrate that mens game generates more revenue throughout the year through ticketing sales, TV deals, sponsorships than the WTA? Mirkaland gave the differential between the 2 respective tours, if the women were generating as much cash as the guys, then it would be no problem.

Don't try the 1965 argument on me, it doesn't wash.

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 04:36 PM
It's a stupid decision. The only benefit of it is that we won't have to hear the stupid whining every year about 'we deserve equal prize-money.'

The product on show does not merit having the same pay as the men and I'm not sure if there's many people who would, if given a choice, would choose to watch a WTA match ovet an ATP match. At least it will shut them up now but it's a daft decision.

:haha: Don't talk nonsense. I'll very often watch a WTA match over an ATP match. Just to illustrate my point, mtf has 26556 members, wtaw has 47,027. Clearly a lo of people care about WTA.

I'm happy with the decision :D

Deboogle!.
02-22-2007, 04:36 PM
How is subjective? When the facts clearly illustrate that mens game generates more revenue throughout the year through ticketing sales, TV deals, sponsorships than the WTA? Mirkaland gave the differential between the 2 respective tours, if the women were generating as much cash as the guys, then it would be no problem.We're not talking about the whole tour. We're talking about Wimbledon. Don't bring in irrelevant things that make no difference.

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 04:37 PM
How is subjective? When the facts clearly illustrate that mens game generates more revenue throughout the year through ticketing sales, TV deals, sponsorships than the WTA? Mirkaland gave the differential between the 2 respective tours, if the women were generating as much cash as the guys, then it would be no problem.

Don't try the 1965 argument on me, it doesn't wash.

Yes, I said just a minute ago, its no opinion its a FACT. How people can argue with the facts is unbelievable. Its a huge difference too.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 04:39 PM
For the past few years the women's Wimbledon final have been just as exciting, if not more so, than the men's final.

Of course. Seeing Federer kicking Andy's ass isn't very entertaining.

that's your subjective opinion that it's weaker. I disagree whole-heartedly.

No, the weakness of WTA isn't subjective.

what multi couloued unifoms are now allowed.....?


This is a point there's still reason.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 04:41 PM
:haha: Don't talk nonsense. I'll very often watch a WTA match over an ATP match. Just to illustrate my point, mtf has 26556 members, wtaw has 47,027. Clearly a lo of people care about WTA.

I'm happy with the decision :D

Have you considered that men follow WTA because of other reasons than tennis?

Shrinking Violet
02-22-2007, 04:41 PM
:haha: Don't talk nonsense. I'll very often watch a WTA match over an ATP match. Just to illustrate my point, mtf has 26556 members, wtaw has 47,027. Clearly a lo of people care about WTA.

I'm happy with the decision :D

That'll be why the crowds are so much higher in WTA tournaments, right?

And you're basing an argument on which messageboard has more people posting on it? :lol:

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 04:43 PM
We're not talking about the whole tour. We're talking about Wimbledon. Don't bring in irrelevant things that make no difference.

Yes, the Slams are run by the ITF, but both organisations (ATP and WTA) have involvement, so is that irrelevant.

Do you know how the pay structures are done at music festivals or not? You bring 2 massive acts together, one has to be the headline and other one has to be the support act. Both generate huge revenues on their own, but as a collective one has take a back seat. Of course this allows for people who will only want to watch the WTA matches, others that can't stand it and the group that like both.

If the women are that highly regarded, then shouldn't they be playing the last match of a Slam. The headline act always gets more money and in this event, the guys are the headline act. Point 2, you know they used to have all women QFs day? They don't anymore and we all know why that it is. It didn't work, if it was that good, then it would have succeeded.

ESPN is not the epicentre of the tennis world, but you knew this.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 04:46 PM
How can we know in concrete numbers how much each tour generate seperately? A lot of tv deals and stuff are sold together for both sport. We can easily guess comparing ATP pricemoney vs WTA pricemoney that men generate more money, but how much more money exactly? It would be just as silly to pay according to some wild guesses.

Like it or not, equal prize money is the only solution that doesn't involve massive headaches. The solution is certainly not: 'oh, we'll pay you slighly less because we think you suck'.

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 04:47 PM
Have you considered that men follow WTA because of other reasons than tennis?

Yeah, but the same can be said for women. Not to the same extent, but to some.

That'll be why the crowds are so much higher in WTA tournaments, right?

And you're basing an argument on which messageboard has more people posting on it? :lol:

No, it won't. If you read what i said, i didn't even suggest that the crowds would be higher in wta tournaments.

I was just showing that your point that almost everyone preferred watching ATP is wrong. I think the messageboard argument at least proves that there is some interest in wta

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 04:48 PM
Have you considered that men follow WTA because of other reasons than tennis?

You are right, I imagine the audience on an internet forum is slightly different to those who go to tournaments etc as well anyway.

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 04:51 PM
You are right, I imagine the audience on an internet forum is slightly different to those who go to tournaments etc as well anyway.

But the difference is by over 20000. Also, people are always saying about there being many gays on wtaw and there are many straight girls too.

wally1
02-22-2007, 04:52 PM
The 3 sets v 5 argument is of course ridiculous. In athletics do 5000m runners get paid more than 800m runners? No, didn't think so. In any case, the arguments over, it's done. Time to move on.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 04:52 PM
Yeah, but the same can be said for women. Not to the same extent, but to some.

No, it won't. If you read what i said, i didn't even suggest that the crowds would be higher in wta tournaments.

I was just showing that your point that almost everyone preferred watching ATP is wrong. I think the messageboard argument at least proves that there is some interest in wta

Messageboards mean nothing. The revenue money is a fact and isn't subjective.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 04:55 PM
I'd like to know a global womens sport besides beach volleyball or gymnastics where the women overall earn more or equal to the men. It doesn't happen in football, volleyball, basketball, track and field, golf, this is not baseless speculation. It's not downgrading the talent of the female sportspeople at all, but they don't earn as much as men, cause they don't generate as much as the men.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 04:55 PM
Messageboards mean nothing. The revenue money is a fact and isn't subjective.

What is your formula to calculate how much men generate and how much women generate?

When ESPN sign a deal for Key Biscayne, Australian Open, etc, do they pay separately for men and women?

2moretogo
02-22-2007, 04:56 PM
Have you considered that men follow WTA because of other reasons than tennis?

Have you considered women follow ATP because of other reasons than tennis?:o

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 04:56 PM
You are right, I imagine the audience on an internet forum is slightly different to those who go to tournaments etc as well anyway.

Of course, but that doesn't mean men watch WTA because of tennis.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 04:56 PM
1965 was the good times George? When women actually knew their place, instead of being delusional and thinking they deserve equal pay. Many of these female players, and females involved have got too big for their boots. It’s as much the wimps who caved in to these women, as the women whiners their selves.

Exactly, man where are the days when a man would beat me into submission and tell me exactly where my place was ... dammit I missed real men. Now all we have are these metrosexual, Ryan Seacrest, whimpy soft hearted, pansy boys. Oh I need me a real man, any takers.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 04:57 PM
I'd like to know a global womens sport besides beach volleyball or gymnastics where the women overall earn more or equal to the men. It doesn't happen in football, volleyball, basketball, track and field, golf, this is not baseless speculation. It's not downgrading the talent of the female sportspeople at all, but they don't earn as much as men, cause they don't generate as much as the men.

Yeah but in those sports men and women don't play at the same place at the same time, so it's kinda easy to pay them according to what they generate. In tennis, the issue is complex because it's not clear how much more popular men are.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 04:58 PM
Of course, but that doesn't mean men watch WTA because of tennis.

Please enlighten me to the any other reason a hetero-sexual man who claims to like like women would watch tennis

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 04:58 PM
Messageboards mean nothing. The revenue money is a fact and isn't subjective.

It doesn't mean that they should be paid the same but it does show that arguments stating that there is much much more interest in ATP than WTA are very likely wrong.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 04:59 PM
What is your formula to calculate how much men generate and how much women generate?

When ESPN sign a deal for Key Biscayne, Australian Open, etc, do they pay separately for men and women?

ESPN is not everything.

The amount of money was posted by mirkaland.

Have you considered women follow ATP because of other reasons than tennis?:o

Yeah, but still much more men watch ATP than women.

joeb_uk
02-22-2007, 05:00 PM
I'd like to know a global womens sport besides beach volleyball or gymnastics where the women overall earn more or equal to the men. It doesn't happen in football, volleyball, basketball, track and field, golf, this is not baseless speculation. It's not downgrading the talent of the female sportspeople at all, but they don't earn as much as men, cause they don't generate as much as the men.

Yes you are right, and I also feel the huge gap in talent between males and females plays a huge part. If the females were actually as good, I am sure there would be much more interest and of course a lot more money generated.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:00 PM
Yeah but in those sports men and women don't play at the same place at the same time, so it's kinda easy to pay them according to what they generate. In tennis, the issue is complex because it's not clear how much more popular men are.

It's clear when you look at the respective tours. Both of these tours come together at Slams and some combined events, don't they? Like I said with the music festival analogy when you get 2 big massive acts playing on the same stage, they don't get paid the same, even if the price of the ticket include both of them. Some fans want to see both, and others want a specific product.

In athletics they appear at the same time and my problem is not 3 vs 5 sets, that's not practical.

zicofirol
02-22-2007, 05:01 PM
Key point is indeed: Same payment for the same achievement.
Well, with Mr. Disney cutting down the 5-sets matches to best-of-three matches like the ladies play, who know what will happen in the future... :cool:

I absolutely agree, SAME PAYMENT FOR THE SAME ACHIEVEMENT, until the WTA starts bringing in more revenue or equal to men, then they get paid the same until then there should not be equal pay...


Welcome to the 21st Century, Wimbledon. I see many of our MTF posters are still stuck in 1965.
that is true, welcome to the 21 st century, where reason is by abandoned on all fronts, and fact matter less and less...

So wnba player should get the same as nba players?

give me one good reason why they should have equal pay?, the objective standard of measure is the revenue they bring in, and the men's game brings in much more revenue, in tv rights, ads, attendance etc.

2moretogo
02-22-2007, 05:01 PM
I'd like to know a global womens sport besides beach volleyball or gymnastics where the women overall earn more or equal to the men. It doesn't happen in football, volleyball, basketball, track and field, golf, this is not baseless speculation. It's not downgrading the talent of the female sportspeople at all, but they don't earn as much as men, cause they don't generate as much as the men.

Who cares? I don't see these sports as having the same tradition, history, and organization as tennis.

I think it is about time. Why should tennis follow what these other sports are doing. It should be a front runner and an example.

federated
02-22-2007, 05:01 PM
Despite being female, I am unhappy at the decision. Equality and equity are two distinct concepts and I certainly do not consider equal pay for women players to be equitable.

I have argued topics such as these to death and I will not pursue such a course of action this time around since arguments on message boards are inherently useless and unproductive. At least this issue is finally at an end, whatever the merits and demirits of it's resolution.

Agreed, on all counts.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 05:03 PM
Please enlighten me to the any other reason a hetero-sexual man who claims to like like women would watch tennis

I prefer to watch ATP than WTA. If I want to watch hot girls I go watching some specific show about it.

It doesn't mean that they should be paid the same but it does show that arguments stating that there is much much more interest in ATP than WTA are very likely wrong.

Between real tennis fans, there's a huge difference.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 05:03 PM
I'd like to know a global womens sport besides beach volleyball or gymnastics where the women overall earn more or equal to the men. It doesn't happen in football, volleyball, basketball, track and field, golf, this is not baseless speculation. It's not downgrading the talent of the female sportspeople at all, but they don't earn as much as men, cause they don't generate as much as the men.


Well if your concerned about the state of the pockets of the big wigs that own tennis, or fearing that because the women get paid a couple hundred thousand dollars more, it will forever bankrupt the entire tennis organization. Well rest assure that the men in the high up seats have already done the math. And guess what, they aren't scared. So now that I've eased your mind, I'm sure you will rest better tonight. No, thanks aren't necessary, just doing my job. :wavey:

BORO77
02-22-2007, 05:05 PM
I think the women deserve about 10 or 20% of the $ the men get.
I dont consider womens tennis as a real sport at all.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 05:05 PM
Who cares? I don't see these sports as having the same tradition, history, and organization as tennis.

I think it is about time. Why should tennis follow what these other sports are doing. It should be a front runner and an example.

Hypocrisy.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 05:05 PM
I prefer to watch ATP than WTA. If I want to watch hot girls I go watching some specific show about it.


so the answer is men might watch tennis because they think that they women who play it are really hottt as you say in your native tongue. tennis= hot women, that's a revelation to me :confused:

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:05 PM
Who cares? I don't see these sports as having the same tradition, history, and organization as tennis.

I think it is about time. Why should tennis follow what these other sports are doing. It should be a front runner and an example.

It's the same principle, the women don't generate the same amount of revenue on a global scale. If they did then their tour would reflect that and if so, then there would be no objections.

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 05:06 PM
Finally, Wimbledon made the right decision and got with the 21st century. I'll lie back and smile as the obvious misogynists on this board :timebomb:

Women and men are built differently so their games, matches, fitness are built differently. You can't say the effort isn't equal.

As for GWH, any match with the Williams sisters clocks anything Federer does on US TV. They are much more profitable for bringing in higher ratings.

Allstar
02-22-2007, 05:06 PM
Who cares? I don't see these sports as having the same tradition, history, and organization as tennis.

I think it is about time. Why should tennis follow what these other sports are doing. It should be a front runner and an example.

Because it's a fundamental application to life, one who generates more money should naturally receive more money.

If anyone can argue a case for equal pay between men and women then they should be able to argue a case for equal pay for doubles, juniors, wheelchair players as well. I somehow dont think they could do this

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:07 PM
Well if your concerned about the state of the pockets of the big wigs that own tennis, or fearing that because the women get paid a couple hundred thousand dollars more, it will forever bankrupt the entire tennis organization. Well rest assure that the men in the high up seats have already done the math. And guess what, they aren't scared. So now that I've eased your mind, I'm sure you will rest better tonight. No, thanks aren't necessary, just doing my job. :wavey:

I will sleep well tonight and your posts will help me do that. Basically the women know how to negotiate on flimsy grounds and they got what they wanted and good for them.

Byrd
02-22-2007, 05:07 PM
Personally if wimbledon go ahead with making the prize money equal, why doesn't it also make the ticket prices equal now e.g lowering mens tickets, seeing that there should be equality in the game according to them.

zicofirol
02-22-2007, 05:09 PM
Because it's a fundamental application to life, one who generates more money should naturally receive more money.

If anyone can argue a case for equal pay between men and women then they should be able to argue a case for equal pay for doubles, juniors, wheelchair players as well. I somehow dont think they could do this

yes...
Tennis Fool, Wimbledon makes more money of the men than they do the the woman, that is the bottom line, I am sure that if venus get higher ratings, espn charges MORE for those ads...

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:10 PM
As for GWH, any match with the Williams sisters clocks anything Federer does on US TV. They are much more profitable for bringing in higher ratings.

America is the world I keep forgetting. There are other countries in the world where they actually appreciate tennis and not just stars.

Yes, so I am a misogynist cause I think in the proper workplace that women deserve the same money as guys, same opportunities, maternty leave, child care subsidies etc.

So, it's misogynistic to think that one organisation which clearly generates more money should subsidise another?

Hugh Jaas
02-22-2007, 05:10 PM
Women and men are built differently so their games, matches, fitness are built differently. You can't say the effort isn't equal.

Women marathon runers run the SAME distance as the men and that is way more demanding on the body than the orgasmic screaming the wta does so why the best of 3 nonsense apply in the 2007 era?.

Can you name me a woman marathon runner that runs 3/5 distance and be classed as equal to the men?

Women's tennis is a joke they play best of 3 and get paid the same as the best of 5 male players???

What a pathetic cop out by the ITF/WTA. Until they play with the same best of 5 sets like the men do I WILL NEVER take the woman's game seriously

Allstar
02-22-2007, 05:10 PM
Women and men are built differently so their games, matches, fitness are built differently. You can't say the effort isn't equal.


I could say an intensive rich farmer in the phillipines works the hardest in the world and should get paid the most money but the fact they are provided a service which is low skill means they shouldnt earn that much. Womens tennis is a different service to mens and not as entertaining on average just like male models arnt in demand as much as female glamour models. It's a way of life.

zicofirol
02-22-2007, 05:11 PM
Personally if wimbledon go ahead with making the prize money equal, why doesn't it also make the ticket prices equal now e.g lowering mens tickets, seeing that there should be equality in the game according to them.

lol, good point, tennis fans should as for equality in those terms.. even teh ticket prices reflect what people are willing to pay for more...

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 05:11 PM
I think the women deserve about 10 or 20% of the $ the men get.
I dont consider womens tennis as a real sport at all.

:rolls: No one cares if you consider it a sport or not. Good for you. I don't like golf, does that mean i can just declare that no golf players deserve money for it?

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 05:13 PM
Can you name me a woman marathon runner that runs 3/5 distance and be classed as equal to the men?

Women's tennis is a joke they play best of 3 and get paid the same as the best of 5 male players???

What a pathetic cop out by the ITF/WTA. Until they play with the same best of 5 sets like the men do I WILL NEVER take the woman's game seriously

So, if Fed drops no sets and the women's winner at Wimbledon drops a set in each match they should be paid the same amount?

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 05:14 PM
I will sleep well tonight and your posts will help me do that. Basically the women know how to negotiate on flimsy grounds and they got what they wanted and good for them.


:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::clap2::clap2::roc ker2::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::nerner::nern er::nerner::nerner: :ras:

Now cry me a river :sad:

Hahaha

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 05:15 PM
so the answer is men might watch tennis because they think that they women who play it are really hottt as you say in your native tongue. tennis= hot women, that's a revelation to me :confused:

Can you read? Hard to believe it.

Anyway, I'm saying that men that watch WTA watch it because of the hot girls, not because of the quality of the sport, that is ridiculous at best.

Any 500-600 ranked player could win easily a women's GS.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 05:15 PM
It's clear when you look at the respective tours. Both of these tours come together at Slams and some combined events, don't they? Like I said with the music festival analogy when you get 2 big massive acts playing on the same stage, they don't get paid the same, even if the price of the ticket include both of them. Some fans want to see both, and others want a specific product.

My point is that there is no objective measure to know how much each tour generate. To say that men generate more than women doesn't help to set how much money women should earn comparing to men.

So ESPN pay X millions to get rights. How much would they willing to pay to show men only? Women only? How do we know?

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 05:16 PM
:rolls: No one cares if you consider it a sport or not. Good for you. I don't like golf, does that mean i can just declare that no golf players deserve money for it?

He's got a point. Technically, WTA doesn't even resemble tennis.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:17 PM
:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::clap2::clap2::cla p2::worship::worship::rocker2::woohoo::woohoo::woo hoo::woohoo::woohoo::nerner::nerner::nerner::nerne r: :ras:

Now cry me a river :sad:

Hahaha

Crying would require effort. Ok, so how does an organisation with a clearly weaker revenue generating base in comparison to its competitor, able to gain the same money as the stronger group without good negotiating skills?

See if you can answer that without 2 smileys.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 05:17 PM
Can you read? Hard to believe it.

Anyway, I'm saying that men that watch WTA watch it because of the hot girls, not because of the quality of the sport, that is ridiculous at best.

Any 500-600 ranked player could win easily a women's GS.

Who cares, as long as people watch, it doesn't matter why.

BTW MatejBockoFan only watches Hewitt because he wants to lick his back.

Byrd
02-22-2007, 05:17 PM
There's hardly any variety in womens tennis to justify it should get paid the same, only players I can think of are henin,hingis and maursemo, the rest are baseline hugging smashers in contrast to mens which has so many interesting match-ups. It's a waste of time arguing this to be honest as I would just be reiterating the same points brought up throughout this thread, but its a sad day for wimbledon, coping out like that, and especially with sharapova & venus' comments who only care about money as its been documented, it really pisses me off.

zicofirol
02-22-2007, 05:19 PM
My point is that there is no objective measure to know how much each tour generate. To say that men generate more than women doesn't help to set how much money women should earn comparing to men.

So ESPN pay X millions to get rights. How much would they willing to pay to show men only? Women only? How do we know?

yes there is, I am sure each tournament has those figures...

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 05:19 PM
Who cares, as long as people watch, it doesn't matter why.

BTW MatejBockoFan only watches Hewitt because he wants to lick his back.

Yeah, but men watch more ATP than WTA, so even this additional attractive isn't enough.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 05:19 PM
So, if Fed drops no sets and the women's winner at Wimbledon drops a set in each match they should be paid the same amount?


Wait so what you are saying is, if women and men both played 5 sets and fed dropped 2 set and a women dropped 1 set, that she should get paid more. Men think about what you're saying before saying it, I know it's not you're forte, per-se but try. And arguments based on sets is soon to be obsolete is it not, aren't they trying to move men's tennis to 3 set matches anyway. find a new argument.

Byrd
02-22-2007, 05:19 PM
So, if Fed drops no sets and the women's winner at Wimbledon drops a set in each match they should be paid the same amount?

Yea the point is, Fed played so good that he did it in straights as he was more efficient, yet a WTA player can struggle to win a match in 3 sets yet get paid the same amount, there's no logic there.

Blue Heart24
02-22-2007, 05:20 PM
When they will play 5 set matches and when they will have so much competition like men's do,let me know that.
Till then,less money.
Stupid decision.It should stay like it was.

Blue Heart24
02-22-2007, 05:21 PM
Women's tennis is a joke,like someone said it before in this thread.

Byrd
02-22-2007, 05:21 PM
Also the lack of game in womens tennis is awful, serena williams a player whose been out for god knows how long manages to come back and wins her first GS tournament back after a bit of practice, shows the amount of depth.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 05:21 PM
Can you read? Hard to believe it.

Anyway, I'm saying that men that watch WTA watch it because of the hot girls, not because of the quality of the sport, that is ridiculous at best.

Any 500-600 ranked player could win easily a women's GS.

I know that Glenn, You obvisously don't get my sarcastic tone, cool down and think about it. I was making fun of any man who actually think that women tennis players are hott duhhh

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:22 PM
My point is that there is no objective measure to know how much each tour generate. To say that men generate more than women doesn't help to set how much money women should earn comparing to men.

So ESPN pay X millions to get rights. How much would they willing to pay to show men only? Women only? How do we know?

What the ATP and WTA don't keep annual records of what they receive in advertising, negotiating TV rights, ticket sales from the tournaments, corporate sponsorship, the cost of the licence to run main level tournaments? Any organisation that isn't a fish and chip shop should keep those sort of records.

If you can't tell from the prizemoney differential and the fact that the WTA have never been willing to declare what they get cause it wouldn't help their case on economic grounds.

Why is ESPN continually mentioned? There are other networks and they are catering to their market. ESPN Latin America doesn't show as much womens tennis as it does the males, that is a market thing.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 05:23 PM
yes there is, I am sure each tournament has those figures...

I just explained that those figures have limitations, in all mixed tournaments (basically most of the important ones), it's impossible to know how much each tour generated separately.

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 05:27 PM
yes...
Tennis Fool, Wimbledon makes more money of the men than they do the the woman, that is the bottom line, I am sure that if venus get higher ratings, espn charges MORE for those ads...
So what? The average pay of players is inversely proportional to the popularity of tennis overall. The argument as I've seen it hasn't been over revenue generation but that men deserve more because of more sets played. In fact there are two different arguments against pay in this thread.
One I'll call the GWH argument; the other the JoelUK argument.
America is the world I keep forgetting. There are other countries in the world where they actually appreciate tennis and not just stars.
What does this have to do with equal pay?

Yes, so I am a misogynist cause I think in the proper workplace that women deserve the same money as guys, same opportunities, maternty leave, child care subsidies etc.
This is irrelevent, but since you brought it up I'd say most of the posters in this thread would be against these measures as well.

So, it's misogynistic to think that one organisation which clearly generates more money should subsidise another?
Again, irrelevent argument for equal pay at Slams.

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 05:30 PM
Wait so what you are saying is, if women and men both played 5 sets and fed dropped 2 set and a women dropped 1 set, that she should get paid more. Men think about what you're saying before saying it, I know it's not you're forte, per-se but try. And arguments based on sets is soon to be obsolete is it not, aren't they trying to move men's tennis to 3 set matches anyway. find a new argument.

Are you talking to me? :confused: I was attacking that argument. :confused: :confused:

He's got a point. Technically, WTA doesn't even resemble tennis.

Rather watch a proper match in wta than Ljubicic v Karlovic in a match of aces :p . So, no, he doesn't have a point other than that he dislikes wta :lol:

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 05:35 PM
Are you talking to me? :confused: I was attacking that argument. :confused: :confused:






I don't know It's too much goin on, if I confused you, sorry but some one was making that argument and it's meant for them. :wavey:

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 05:35 PM
Women marathon runers run the SAME distance
But slower times.

as the men and that is way more demanding on the body than the orgasmic screaming the wta does so why the best of 3 nonsense apply in the 2007 era?.
This is just misogynist.

Can you name me a woman marathon runner that runs 3/5 distance and be classed as equal to the men? Like I said, slower times. I usually watch the NYC marathon from the sidelines as it runs down my street, and they start the women's races 40 minutes earlier. Before 1984, there were no Olympic marations for women as it was considered to taxing on their bodies.

Women's tennis is a joke they play best of 3 and get paid the same as the best of 5 male players??? Again, apples and oranges. But I also subscribe to the Wertheim theory that Slams on the men's side should be best of 3 until the Quarters. Some guys can't play best of 5 either (Andy Murray, James Blake, Ivan Ljubicic) :tape:

What a pathetic cop out by the ITF/WTA. Until they play with the same best of 5 sets like the men do I WILL NEVER take the woman's game seriously :timebomb:

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 05:37 PM
Yea the point is, Fed played so good that he did it in straights as he was more efficient, yet a WTA player can struggle to win a match in 3 sets yet get paid the same amount, there's no logic there.

And, what if the wta player wins all her matches in straight sets and the male player all in 5? People would complain that the woman played too few sets to get paid as much. :rolleyes:
You can't argue both ways surely :lol:

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 05:37 PM
I could say an intensive rich farmer in the phillipines works the hardest in the world and should get paid the most money but the fact they are provided a service which is low skill means they shouldnt earn that much. Womens tennis is a different service to mens and not as entertaining on average just like male models arnt in demand as much as female glamour models. It's a way of life.

Ok. :) :timebomb:

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:38 PM
So what? The average pay of players is inversely proportional to the popularity of tennis overall. The argument as I've seen it hasn't been over revenue generation but that men deserve more because of more sets played. In fact there are two different arguments against pay in this thread.
One I'll call the GWH argument; the other the JoelUK argument.

It's never been about the best of 5 set argument.

What does this have to do with equal pay?

You are the one who keeps going on about the Williams sisters and more people want to watch them in the US. Hence the US is not the world, not hard to figure that out is it.

Again, irrelevent argument for equal pay at Slams

Far from irrelevant, when both organisations do contribute to the Slams even though they are run by the ITF. It's obvious you have never been to a music festival with headline and support acts, the principles are actually the same.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 05:39 PM
There's hardly any variety in womens tennis to justify it should get paid the same, only players I can think of are henin,hingis and maursemo, the rest are baseline hugging smashers in contrast to mens which has so many interesting match-ups. It's a waste of time arguing this to be honest as I would just be reiterating the same points brought up throughout this thread, but its a sad day for wimbledon, coping out like that, and especially with sharapova & venus' comments who only care about money as its been documented, it really pisses me off.


Agreed.

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 05:40 PM
Also the lack of game in womens tennis is awful, serena williams a player whose been out for god knows how long manages to come back and wins her first GS tournament back after a bit of practice, shows the amount of depth.

Yeah, like Pete Sampras didn't do similarly by sucking for two years and then winning the US Open in 2002.

Federer has owned tennis for almost 4 years now, we have the same arguments on this board about lack of depth. Maybe we should lower the prize money for men since we're obviously in a clown era.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 05:45 PM
Yeah, like Pete Sampras didn't do similarly by sucking for two years and then winning the US Open in 2002.

Federer has owned tennis for almost 4 years now, we have the same arguments on this board about lack of depth. Maybe we should lower the prize money for men since we're obviously in a clown era.

:lol::lol::lol:

guille&tati4life
02-22-2007, 05:45 PM
There's hardly any variety in womens tennis to justify it should get paid the same, only players I can think of are henin,hingis and maursemo, the rest are baseline hugging smashers in contrast to mens which has so many interesting match-ups.

:haha:
Have you heard of Schnyder or Chakvetadze? They're both in the top 15 and can't just smash the ball. Schnyder has more variety than almost anyone in both mens and womens tennis.

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 05:45 PM
It's never been about the best of 5 set argument.
Not for you.



not hard to figure that out is it...

It's obvious you have never been...

Well, since you know everything, not else to say.

Byrd
02-22-2007, 05:45 PM
Yeah, like Pete Sampras didn't do similarly by sucking for two years and then winning the US Open in 2002.

Federer has owned tennis for almost 4 years now, we have the same arguments on this board about lack of depth. Maybe we should lower the prize money for men since we're obviously in a clown era.

Arguments goes both ways, how do you know its not lack of depth and its federer who plays invincible tennis, its subjective and a whole other argument.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:48 PM
Well, since you know everything, not else to say.

How can the women justify on economic and commerical grounds to be deserving of the same cash?

Yes, I know the women don't generate as much cash as the men during the year and what reasons would that change in a Grand Slam event?

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 05:52 PM
How can the women justify on economic and commerical grounds to be deserving of the same cash?

Yes, I know the women don't generate as much cash as the men during the year and what reasons would that change in a Grand Slam event?

Maybe this wasn't the argument relevent with the Wimbledon committee.

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 05:54 PM
Maybe this wasn't the argument relevent with the Wimbledon committee.

In other words you can't answer it.

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 05:56 PM
How funny that people take this as sexism... :lol:

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 06:02 PM
In other words you can't...
There you go again, and I'm through.

ezekiel
02-22-2007, 06:14 PM
I think this is an outrageous act of political correctness gone wild .

Regenbogen
02-22-2007, 06:15 PM
Maybe this wasn't the argument relevent with the Wimbledon committee.

Doesn't seem like it. If that was really what they cared about, they should have done some sort of study on who brings in the most cash, presented the results and said this why the women get this amount of prize money.

To me, the fact that they went with equal prize money now makes it seem more like it was just sexism in the past.

R.Federer
02-22-2007, 06:22 PM
I NEVER SEE WOMEN MARATHON RUNNERS running half as much as the men so why do they have to treated differently at the GS tournaments??!?

I think the uncharitable explanation for this is that : no one wants to see 5 sets worth of women's tennis.

R.Federer
02-22-2007, 06:25 PM
I do not know what to make of this decision until I see hard facts about how much revenue the women bring in relative to the men.

Tennis, well the whole deal is a show. It's not just tennis quality, but chunks of the spectators come to see some women in swim wear play on a court. On some occasions, a women's match is more entertaining than a mindless whitewash of a men's watch.

So it is difficult to quantify entertainment value of women and men. Lets say they are equal, then the question only becomes who brings in more people, more audience, better sponsors? I would like to see some numbers.

scoobs
02-22-2007, 06:25 PM
Where have all these people been complaining about the US Open and Australian Open offering equal prize money and the French Open offering parity to the champions?

In short, rather than attacking the other tournaments for what they disagree with, they have accepted that status quo but believe Wimbledon should be the only one that holds out against moves against this direction. If you really believed equal pay was wrong you would be protesting to Australia and the US Open, not protesting that Wimbledon is scrapping the inequality.

This argument was lost a long time ago and I'm glad that the prospect is close that we will no longer have this endless irritating debate every time the middle two slams come around. I hope Roland Garros takes the final step in good time and we can finally stop fussing about it and concentrate on the tennis.

johnnylad
02-22-2007, 06:28 PM
Awful decision. Politically correct rubbish. I'd rather see WTA play over one set anyway. Then their screaming would be over quicker

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 06:28 PM
Where have all these people been complaining about the US Open and Australian Open offering equal prize money and the French Open offering parity to the champions?

Hated it then and now.

scoobs
02-22-2007, 06:30 PM
Have you protested to the US Open and Australian Open?

I doubt anyone has. It's a bit hypocritical to accept that without protest then moan when Wimbledon moves in that direction too.

Anyway, it's done. Right or wrong, it's done.

Denaon
02-22-2007, 06:30 PM
I sincerely don't give a sh*t.....I'm neither a tennis player nor a woman tennis player :haha:......and I won't certainly get any money from Wimbledon either by any means....so...:shrug:
It's their business...not mine :ras:

johnnylad
02-22-2007, 06:32 PM
don't give a sh*t somewhere else then!

Denaon
02-22-2007, 06:32 PM
don't give a sh*t somewhere else then!

I don't give a shit in your face dude....:devil:
Can't I say it's their business :shrug:

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 06:33 PM
Have you protested to the US Open and Australian Open?

I doubt anyone has. It's a bit hypocritical to accept that without protest then moan when Wimbledon moves in that direction too.

Anyway, it's done. Right or wrong, it's done.

The arguments are exactly the same for all events. Go and search for the RG thread and you will see I have made the same or similar comments on this issue.

As for the US Open/Aus Open they did it a while ago and the economic arguments were the same then as now.

johnnylad
02-22-2007, 06:36 PM
you can :)
(as long as you don't do the aforementioned "thing" in my face :)

Denaon
02-22-2007, 06:39 PM
you can :)
(as long as you don't do the aforementioned "thing" in my face :)

:haha: I won't.....don't worry :p
:yeah:

kapranos
02-22-2007, 06:40 PM
Maybe their decision isn't strickly economical? For a lot of players ranked lower than 100, it's a nice boost for their career to have a fat check.

If women want to improve (and God knows some really do), part of the solution is to give them more money to be able to afford a better coach and stuff. So maybe equal pay is there partly as a support.

johnnylad
02-22-2007, 06:42 PM
:haha: I won't.....don't worry :p
:yeah:

phew! :yeah:

nobama
02-22-2007, 07:12 PM
Welcome to the 21st Century, Wimbledon. I see many of our MTF posters are still stuck in 1965.The total prize money for women's events this year is $34.4M. For the men it's $61.2M (and I'm including there the $4.5M figure listed on the TMC website; I'm not sure if that's '06 or '07 figure because the ATP's calendar doesn't list a dollar figure for TMC yet). Explain why the pool of prize $$ for men is 78% greater than the women but somehow for the slams it should be equal. :shrug:

nobama
02-22-2007, 07:14 PM
For the past few years the women's Wimbledon final have been just as exciting, if not more so, than the men's final.That's your opinion. You can't base prize money on that.

nobama
02-22-2007, 07:18 PM
As for GWH, any match with the Williams sisters clocks anything Federer does on US TV. They are much more profitable for bringing in higher ratings.Yes because all that matters is the ratings in the USA. :retard:

nobama
02-22-2007, 07:22 PM
To me, the fact that they went with equal prize money now makes it seem more like it was just sexism in the past.They're just being PC and don't want to deal with all the crap each year. The French will cave next.

Sjengster
02-22-2007, 07:25 PM
Well, 'tis good to get the issue out of the way, and they've neatly undercut RG by making it equal prize money for every round, so now their Parisian counterparts look like the antediluvian ones instead. I mean as far as quality of play goes then it's not even a contest, but I can appreciate the wider principle that's at stake here.

I don't think holding up examples of men's or women's finals as the better match would be a cast-iron argument either way; no doubt the 2005 women's final was superior to the men's, but one could say the reverse about the previous year, other years have been more or less equal for entertainment value etc.

kapranos
02-22-2007, 07:30 PM
The total prize money for women's events this year is $34.4M. For the men it's $61.2M (and I'm including there the $4.5M figure listed on the TMC website; I'm not sure if that's '06 or '07 figure because the ATP's calendar doesn't list a dollar figure for TMC yet). Explain why the pool of prize $$ for men is 78% greater than the women but somehow for the slams it should be equal. :shrug:

Well it's not really realistic to boost prize money so men earn around 50 to 75% more than women, and it's not realistic to lower the prize money for women... So?

Action Jackson
02-22-2007, 07:32 PM
Well it's not really realistic to boost prize money so men earn around 50 to 75% more than women, and it's not realistic to lower the prize money for women... So?

Is that not a clear enough differential in earning power between the two groups?

Allstar
02-22-2007, 07:42 PM
Maybe their decision isn't strickly economical? For a lot of players ranked lower than 100, it's a nice boost for their career to have a fat check.

If women want to improve (and God knows some really do), part of the solution is to give them more money to be able to afford a better coach and stuff. So maybe equal pay is there partly as a support.

They already get enough pay. What about the men outside the top 100 who this is taking from even though they deserve it more because they draw a slightly bigger crowd.

It's morally wrong to give equal pay. It's like having a choice between a ferreri or a mondeo for 5k even though the Ferrari clealy yields more utility. Naturally things that cost more to make are priced higher just like if a one person generates more revenue than the next then they get a higher income.

People who rave on about 3/5 sets ruin the arguments. This is only a tiny factor and not the driving reason why men should get more.

zicofirol
02-22-2007, 07:54 PM
Well, 'tis good to get the issue out of the way, and they've neatly undercut RG by making it equal prize money for every round, so now their Parisian counterparts look like the antediluvian ones instead. I mean as far as quality of play goes then it's not even a contest, but I can appreciate the wider principle that's at stake here.


what the principle at stake? you make less money for the tournament than the men but you will get paid the same because your a woman?

it seems like the principle of earning by what you produce is being shattered...

I guess teh wnba players should get the same as nba players right?

Tennis Fool
02-22-2007, 07:55 PM
Yes because all that matters is the ratings in the USA. :retard:

Well, aren't you special.

embellish
02-22-2007, 08:00 PM
what the principle at stake? you make less money for the tournament than the men but you will get paid the same because your a woman?

it seems like the principle of earning by what you produce is being shattered...

I guess teh wnba players should get the same as nba players right?

Chill out, it was a decision obviously made to stop the yearly debate that always comes up, not on revenue etc. It doesn't really affect anyone here so why the fuss?

kapranos
02-22-2007, 08:07 PM
why the fuss?

Well it seems some people are obsessed with the fact that womens tennis suck so they desesperatly want prize money to reflect that.

zicofirol
02-22-2007, 08:09 PM
Chill out, it was a decision obviously made to stop the yearly debate that always comes up, not on revenue etc. It doesn't really affect anyone here so why the fuss?

its the principle that is at stake...

besides it is a message board so...

GlennMirnyi
02-22-2007, 08:14 PM
I think the uncharitable explanation for this is that : no one wants to see 5 sets worth of women's tennis.

:lol: True.

The total prize money for women's events this year is $34.4M. For the men it's $61.2M (and I'm including there the $4.5M figure listed on the TMC website; I'm not sure if that's '06 or '07 figure because the ATP's calendar doesn't list a dollar figure for TMC yet). Explain why the pool of prize $$ for men is 78% greater than the women but somehow for the slams it should be equal. :shrug:

Hard to understand, really.

its the principle that is at stake...

besides it is a message board so...

Agreed.


I'd like to know from all the hypocrite people that call men sexist what you'll call the women that criticise this idea. Are you going to call them sexist too? :cuckoo:

The Daviator
02-22-2007, 08:15 PM
Marat Safin Aus Open 2004 run to Final:
R128 Vahaly, Brian (USA) 84 6-2 3-6 6-3 6-4
R64 Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN) 37 7-6(5) 6-4 4-6 6-4
R32 Martin, Todd (USA) 66 7-5 1-6 4-6 6-0 7-5
R16 Blake, James (USA) 39 7-6(3) 6-3 6-7(6) 6-3
Q Roddick, Andy (USA) 1 2-6 6-3 7-5 6-7 6-4
S Agassi, Andre (USA) 4 7-6(6) 7-6(6) 5-7 1-6 6-3
F Federer, Roger (SUI) 2 6-7(3) 4-6 2-6

Amelie Mauresmo 2006 Aus Open Title run
R128 SUN, TIANTIAN CHN 4-6 6-2 6-2
R64 LOIT, EMILIE FRA 7-6(1) 6-2
R32 KRAJICEK, MICHAELLA NED W 6-2 ret.
R16 VAIDISOVA, NICOLE CZE W 6-1 6-1
Q SCHNYDER, PATTY SUI W 6-3 6-0
S CLIJSTERS, KIM BEL W 5-7 6-2 3-2 ret.
F HENIN-HARDENNE, JUSTINE BEL W 6-1 2-0 ret.

To quote Johnny Mac: "You CAN'T be serious!" How is this fair to the men? Have we become so pc that we can't think reasonably. Not to mention the TV revenue of a 3 to 4 hour men's final vs a 45 minute Womens chokefest final where one competitor can't cope with the moment(How many times have we seen this?)....IMO it is almost two different sports. I've personally witnessed training sessions where a 15 year old advanced junior boy has to hold back in hitting sessions and drills with a Top 15 Womens pro.

The sacrifice and work ethic that a male player has to put into make it and maintain a top ranking is incredible. Contrast this with just a few short years ago where you had a Women's top ten loaded with overweight players.. Think about it? Davenport, Seles, Pierce and Capriati were at times 20 to 30 lbs out of shape while ranked in the top ten...., You can't crack the top 700 in the mens game with that kind of comittment.......anyway there's my rant....:(


Wasn't 'Fat Dave' ranked #3 last year? :retard:

And as for those results you listed, how convenient of you to use the least convincing women's Slam win ever to aid your argument, well done you :yeah:

:rolleyes:

2moretogo
02-22-2007, 08:15 PM
Yeah, but still much more men watch ATP than women.

Ummm, more men watch tennis period. Most people watch tennis for the sport. Others watch it non-tennis reasons. To say that men who watch the WTA watch for non-tennis reasons, and to discount the women that watch the ATP for non-tennis reasons, doesn't make any sense.

It's the same principle, the women don't generate the same amount of revenue on a global scale. If they did then their tour would reflect that and if so, then there would be no objections.

No, its not. Women's tennis generates more money than other sports you mentioned. And women playing tennis should be paid appropriately. Enough with the days of chivanistic elitism. Futher, I would point out the socio-economic reasons behind these disprencies.

Because it's a fundamental application to life, one who generates more money should naturally receive more money.

If anyone can argue a case for equal pay between men and women then they should be able to argue a case for equal pay for doubles, juniors, wheelchair players as well. I somehow dont think they could do this

Are you kidding me? Juniors? I thought we were talking about professional sports? Juniors aren't playing with the big boys/girls so they shouldn't get paid that way. Further, when they start playing wheelchairs on the grand stadiums and booking them as marquee events, then we can talk.

The total prize money for women's events this year is $34.4M. For the men it's $61.2M (and I'm including there the $4.5M figure listed on the TMC website; I'm not sure if that's '06 or '07 figure because the ATP's calendar doesn't list a dollar figure for TMC yet). Explain why the pool of prize $$ for men is 78% greater than the women but somehow for the slams it should be equal. :shrug:

And I would point to the fact that this is a bigger problem, then they don't deserve this or that. This speaks volumes about the status quo, and the fact that traditionally, marketing has been centered around sex, which hasn't been something associated with women atlethes on a large scale until recently.

scoobs
02-22-2007, 08:27 PM
This time next year nobody will give a shit about this decision. Nobody cares that the US Open and Australian Open have offered equal prize money for years. Soon nobody will be talking about Wimbledon doing the same, it will be a complete non-issue and about bloody time.

embellish
02-22-2007, 08:31 PM
its the principle that is at stake...

besides it is a message board so...

You could argue that theres a principle at stake for the other side as well :devil:

I really don't know on this issue, previously I have been wholeheartedly for it merely based on the inequality argument and the fact that is seems archaic & sexist for Wimbledon not to pay equal prize money. However the stats quoted about revenue etc are quite convincing & if you take it that women want to be treated equally then they should be prepared to be paid on the fruits of their labour.

tangerine_dream
02-22-2007, 08:32 PM
That's your opinion. You can't base prize money on that.
No shit. My opinion was in response to somebody else's opinion that the women's matches lacked in quality compared to the men's. It's all subjective, hence why all these pro/con arguments about paying women the same can go on and on and on.

Aphex
02-22-2007, 08:34 PM
Wimbledon makes a huge profit every year, about £30M according to Jim Courier http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=10128544&postcount=81

They should pay everybody more.

Metis
02-22-2007, 08:49 PM
Wimbledon makes a huge profit every year, about £30M according to Jim Courier http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=10128544&postcount=81

They should pay everybody more.


No, they should decrease ticket prices. :)


Anyway, that was a good decision by Wimbledon. It was about time. :yeah:

sploush
02-22-2007, 08:53 PM
No, they should decrease ticket prices. :)


Anyway, that was a good decision by Wimbledon. It was about time. :yeah:

second that Metis they should decrease ticket prices. I am not sure about the good decision though, again this has nothing to do with equality between men and women its about one business being more profitable and more popular than the other, if wta was more popular and profitable than atp than the women should be paid more. But that's not the case.

aulus
02-22-2007, 09:04 PM
i don't really know why ppl even care so much about this.

why shouldn't women's tennis be subsidized?? subsidy is much better than risk of decay and death.
no one cares to see 200th ranked players, so should they get >$100? low ranked men are subsidized, too. is that wrong?

i cannot believe ppl are actually making these moral arguments about the pay of professional athletes. i have no idea how someone could even be morally outraged by something so trivial.

if pay should be by revenues, why should it not be applied to individuals as well? revenue by gender is an arbitrary division. how much more should federer be paid than stepanek? argentines are probably bigger draws than non-argentines at buenos aires, should they get more $?

there is no principle at stake. probably USO revenues were worse when kuznetsova won than when williams sisters played in final. should kuznetsova have made less?
if the women's final created more revenue, should the women be paid more?
when roddick lost in 1st round of USO, he was probably a bigger draw than other 1st round losers. should he have received more $?
there is no principle. executives set the prize funds for the good of tennis, not for some kind of stupid economic morality.

jazar
02-22-2007, 09:09 PM
its a stupid idea. they wont deserve equal prize money

Pureracket
02-22-2007, 09:18 PM
Great decision by the organizers.

Wannabeknowitall
02-22-2007, 10:27 PM
I still don't think it's a good idea.
The WTA pressured Wimbledon to give equal prize money because the other slams do it and because they believe they deserve it.
Yet there are tournis still out there that the women play that don't get the same pay as the men, Indian Wells, Berlin, and Rome with bigger discrepancies between the men and women.
I don't think they'll ever get the same pay at these tournis now.
I don't feel they should either.

I think it would have been easier to get to Wimbledon if every tourni that the men and women play had equal pay.
I think it's going to be incredibly impossible now to get different sponsers to pay the same for the same tourni even with Wimbledon now giving equal pay.
I just find the thought process dumb.

hablovah19
02-22-2007, 10:38 PM
I'm glad Wimbledon finally came to its senses.
I hope RG does the same too (and give equal pay for all the rounds).

kapranos
02-22-2007, 11:14 PM
Is it me or wtaworld has invaded this thread?

ASP0315
02-22-2007, 11:53 PM
Haas is against it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6388351.stm
Haas critical of SW19 equal pay

Haas progressed to the last eight in Memphis on Thursday
Tommy Haas has criticised the All England Club's decision to pay women and men equal prize money for the first time at this year's Wimbledon.
The German, ranked ninth in the world, said: "I don't think it's really fair.

"I think the depth of men's tennis is much tougher than the women's, plus we play best of five sets.

"Not to say the women don't deserve it. The top players train very hard and are very good players but in general I don't agree with it."

Following Thursday's announcement, Wimbledon will join the US and Australian Opens in paying equal money across the board, from the champions to the first-round losers in all events.

American Mardy Fish, like Haas speaking after playing at the Memphis International, said he understood the decision.

"We're all out there to put on a show for the fans," said Fish.

"OK, so we're not out there for the same time, the only beef I would have with it is that we're out there for longer.

"But there are a lot of tennis fans who prefer women's tennis to men's tennis. They have a lot of longer rallies and the fans like that - maybe the men's game is a bit fast."

Jlee
02-22-2007, 11:56 PM
Good decision. I had a problem with it because the variation between the pize money was not significant enough that it reflected supposed marketing differences. It was just there to continue an old tradition, not for actual proven facts that men draw more crowds.

Women's tennis is huge, and the length of their playing time shouldn't affect the amount they're paid. It's not as if the organizers get more money for longer matches, it's all about ticket sales. Women's matches draw lots of fans as well. Maybe if there was a factual statistic about the percentage of people the men draw versus the women then it would be reasonable to reflect the difference in the amounts. As it stands, it's just a belief that doesn't seem to be particularly grounded.

ljubicic_
02-22-2007, 11:56 PM
Not fair! The guys have to play best of 5 in a strong competition but the girls best of 3 in a weak competition.

sondraj06
02-22-2007, 11:58 PM
Not fair! The guys have to play best of 5 in a strong competition but the girls best of 3 in a weak competition.

So back to my original question, when they reduce the boys games to best of 3 should the pay be equal then. Oh, wait let me anticipate that answer. Women are weaker and they don't bring in as much revenue, Hum funny. Weak game deserve less pay, but weak arguments get as much attention, now that's not fair at all.

Johnny Groove
02-23-2007, 12:00 AM
total joke.

kapranos
02-23-2007, 12:06 AM
Good decision. I had a problem with it because the variation between the pize money was not significant enough that it reflected supposed marketing differences. It was just there to continue an old tradition, not for actual proven facts that men draw more crowds.

Exactly... Like I said, either it's equal prize money, either they pay them for what they're worth economically. Anything else is not acceptable.

And if they pick the second option, they better produce concrete numbers and a fair mathematical formula to explain the different paychecks.

zicofirol
02-23-2007, 12:24 AM
Is it me or wtaworld has invaded this thread?

by the high number of stupid post, I would say yes, its high even by MTF standards..

Jlee
02-23-2007, 12:25 AM
Exactly... Like I said, either it's equal prize money, either they pay them for what they're worth economically. Anything else is not acceptable.

And if they pick the second option, they better produce concrete numbers and a fair mathematical formula to explain the different paychecks.

Sorry, I didn't read through the whole thread and must have missed your post! :)

Yep, that's exactly what I was saying as well.

zicofirol
02-23-2007, 12:28 AM
i don't really know why ppl even care so much about this.

why shouldn't women's tennis be subsidized?? subsidy is much better than risk of decay and death.
no one cares to see 200th ranked players, so should they get >$100? low ranked men are subsidized, too. is that wrong?

:retard: :retard: :retard:
so they earn the same in challengers as they do in majors? wow I didnt know that, thanks :worship:

Shrinking Violet
02-23-2007, 12:34 AM
Come on now - isn't it fair that a women's first round 6-0, 6-1 match that lasts 40 mins gets the same pay as a 4 hour 5 setter in the same round? :rolleyes:

As a woman I find it pathetic that some bizarre notion that equality means that I get paid the same money for less work. That doesn't fall under the banner of 'equality'. It's not equality. It's not fair and if I were one of the men I would be pissed off at it.

Jlee
02-23-2007, 12:37 AM
Come on now - isn't it fair that a women's first round 6-0, 6-1 match that lasts 40 mins gets the same pay as a 4 hour 5 setter in the same round? :rolleyes:

As a woman I find it pathetic that some bizarre notion that equality means that I get paid the same money for less work. That doesn't fall under the banner of 'equality'. It's not equality. It's not fair and if I were one of the men I would be pissed off at it.

The number of sets doesn't matter. As I said, it's all about the ticket sales. The organizers don't get a different amount for more tennis. If every match was a bagel fest they would get the same amount of money!!!

If they had a concrete formula for calculating the difference in ticket sales, fine. But it's not about the sets and shouldn't be an abstract standard.

goldenlox
02-23-2007, 12:55 AM
This is not about who works harder, who plays better, how long they play, how competitive the matches are.
This is about the public image of a brand. Wimbledon is a valuable brand.
They don't want the criticism they got last year.
The FO will go equal on March 16 for the same reason.

Dusk Soldier
02-23-2007, 12:59 AM
when roddick lost in 1st round of USO, he was probably a bigger draw than other 1st round losers. should he have received more $?He did receive more money than the other 1st round losers for that tournament.

Dusk Soldier
02-23-2007, 01:03 AM
Does that analogy make it perfectly clear why the ability to generate profit for the tournament should have absolutely NOTHING to do with equal pay?not really. Going by your logic then they would have to make sure that the doubles players, juniors, and seniors were also all getting equal prize money too.

goldenlox
02-23-2007, 01:05 AM
Wimbledon is a cash cow. It makes a fortune every year. This equality move is about strengthening the brand, by changing its image, not who draws fans. Wimbledon will make huge revenue no matter who is in the draws.

Peoples
02-23-2007, 01:18 AM
What? :eek:
It's absurd. What's next? Women will be allowed on the inside of the bus?? Women will be allowed to vote??? :rolleyes:

Andre♥
02-23-2007, 01:26 AM
I could not care less.

Btw the women's final last year was so much better than the men's final. And I pretty much dislike women playing tennis.

sondraj06
02-23-2007, 01:30 AM
What? :eek:
It's absurd. What's next? Women will be allowed on the inside of the bus?? Women will be allowed to vote??? :rolleyes:

How absurd indeed...smack these bitches back in place....;)

Dusk Soldier
02-23-2007, 01:56 AM
Right, because the argued difference between men's singles and women's singles in quality/ability/revenue generation is the same as the difference between men's singles and junior girls' singles.but men's and women's singles is not equal. that's why they were being paid unequal amounts in the first place.

Shrinking Violet
02-23-2007, 01:57 AM
Some guys take on it.

Tommy Haas

"I don't think it's really fair," Haas told reporters after reaching the Memphis International quarter-finals with a 7-6 7-6 win over American Amer Delic on Thursday.

"I think the depth of men's tennis is much tougher than the women's, plus we play best of five sets."

Haas said the men had to be in top physical condition to succeed at the grasscourt grand slam.

"You might think it's not as brutal but you have to be in unbelievable shape on grass, even if the ball stays low and the points are shorter," said the German.

"Not to say that the women don't deserve it. The top players train very hard and are very good tennis players but in general I don't agree with it."

Andy Murray -

"I think it's obviously great for women's tennis," Murray said.

"It's probably the only sport in the world where women are making the same money as men. That can really only be a good thing.

"Guys are obviously going to be annoyed if you go and play a five-hour match and then the women play a 45-minute match and they are getting the same money.

"But that's not really the point. Bar some of the top females, a lot of the guys get very good sponsorships. In the smaller tournaments, there's more money on the men's side, so apart from the grand slams, I think there are more tournaments on the men's tour as well.

"Maybe we should have a few more perks than the women but the equal prize-money thing is definitely a good thing for tennis. It's definitely a good sign of things to come.

"It would be the only sport in the world like this will maybe make tennis appeal to more fans, so for the four biggest tournaments in the year I guess it's a good thing."

Mardy Fish -

"We're all out there to put on a show for the fans,"

"OK, so we're not out there for the same time, the only beef I would have with it is that we're out there for longer.

"But there are a lot of tennis fans who prefer women's tennis to men's tennis. They have a lot of longer rallies and the fans like that, maybe the men's game is a bit fast."

embellish
02-23-2007, 02:03 AM
Murray's changed his tune Murray said: "I don't think it's fair that the women get paid the same as the guys, because if you look at it, the guys have the potential to play a five-and-a-half-hour match. A lot of the women can win the first three or four rounds having dropped no more than four games. That doesn't really happen in the men's [tournament]. There are a lot of tough matches out there."

He added: "[The prize money] is something that everyone has argued about. I think the majority of people who come to watch during the first week at Wimbledon will be coming to watch one of the male matches.

"Obviously, when the big names like Sharapova and Henin and those sort of players come out, people will turn up to watch them, but I just think there's more interest at the start of the tournament [in the men] than there is for the women."

Shrinking Violet
02-23-2007, 02:06 AM
He's learned his lesson about rocking the boat with the women after his joke about serving like a woman last year. ;)

He's not really changed his tune to be fair, he;s just worded it more diplomatically. You know - it's great for the women, men might be annoyed if they play for five hours and get paid the same as a 45 minute match, men should have more perks but for four tournaments a year it doesn't matter because they get more money elsewhere.

sondraj06
02-23-2007, 02:09 AM
Murray's changed his tune



this just reestablishes my stance. we should have keep them on leashes when we had the chance, now look what equal opportunity gets us ladies. Maybe next time we'll learn ;)

embellish
02-23-2007, 02:18 AM
He's learned his lesson about rocking the boat with the women after his joke about serving like a woman last year. ;)

He's not really changed his tune to be fair, he;s just worded it more diplomatically. You know - it's great for the women, men might be annoyed if they play for five hours and get paid the same as a 45 minute match, men should have more perks but for four tournaments a year it doesn't matter because they get more money elsewhere.

True actually, I think the article I was reading earlier made it sound like he was completely lambasting the idea and when you get to the actual quote its not quite like they make it sound. Can't imagine the media doing that!!

tangerine_dream
02-23-2007, 04:38 AM
Thanks for posting those quotes by the players and I hope we hear from more, I'm curious to know what they think about it.

From ESPN Insider:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=tennis#20070222
Playing by their own rules
by: Peter Bodo, TENNIS.com
Thursday, February 22, 2007

No matter how many different ways I look at Wimbledon's decision to award equal prize money to men and women for the first time since tennis became a pro sport in 1968, the subtext I see emanating from the club is this: We are Wimbledon, we do things our own way, and in our own time, because we can. Take from it what you will and have a nice day!

I arrived at this conclusion because even the most ardent equal-prize advocate has to admit that Wimbledon's decision to withhold equal prize money has never been interpreted by anyone as anything but a symbolic act, and the club rubbed everyone's snout in it by merrily sticking with figures that are almost perverse in their lack of real meaning. Last year, men's singles champ Roger Federer got $1,170,000 and his counterpart, Amelie Mauresmo banked $1,117,000, a difference that could pass as a rounding error in this high-octane crowd.

So what does Wimbledon get for the additional outlay of roughly 50K for the women's champ, and a total, across-the-board addition (to ensure equal pay in all the draws) of $1.1 million? "The greatest tennis tournament in the world has reached an every greater height today," said Venus Williams, the greatest equal pay activist reaching even greater oratory heights. "I applaud today's decision by Wimbledon, which recognizes the value of women's tennis. The 2007 Championships will have even greater meaning and significance to me and my fellow players."

I take that to mean that Venus may even consider playing in the tournament!

WTA Tour CEO Larry Scott weighed in with this doozy: "This is an historic and defining moment for women in the sport of tennis and a significant step forward for the equality of women in our society."

Of course, it isn't exactly clear what society Herr CEO is talking about here: British society? Inuit Society? Pakistani Society? The U.S. Society of Lavishly Overcompensated and Under-committed Tennis Stars (USLOUTS)? Whatever the case, women in droves will surely be dancing in the streets of Detroit, Montevideo, Dubai City and Capetown when this news hits.

Never before has a calculatedly thrown bone inspired such a flotilla of superlatives, although venerable fem-warrior Billie Jean King's reaction had a slightly less Welcome to the Age of Aquarius tone. The first official words out of her mouth were: "This news had been a long time coming."

That's a pretty accurate assessment, underscoring the extent to which Wimbledon's guys-in-ties played out this scenario fairly adroitly. The club capitalized on a largely symbolic disparity in prize-money to reassert its independence, leap into the headlines, and inspire the Hallmark Greeting Card slogan crowd to breathlessly treat their rounding error as an epochal moment for the women of this planet. Rumor has it that Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama is going to weigh-in with more "healing" words any moment now.

Once again, the main thing I take from this: The most important thing to Wimbledon is its own importance. This isn't the worst thing, I suppose, but it sure leaves the French (Roland Garros is now the last bastion of gender-based prize-money disparity) holding the bag. I have a funny feeling the guys-in-ties don't mind that one bit.

R.Federer
02-23-2007, 06:07 AM
Well, there are two separate issues that Murray is somehow mixing up here. One is that men are required to play best of 5, and a separate point is that they don't win very easily. Men may not win easily even in best of 3, but that has something to do with the depth and I don't think the pay difference has ever been about the difference in depth in the men's game and women's game.

Murray said: "I don't think it's fair that the women get paid the same as the guys, because if you look at it, the guys have the potential to play a five-and-a-half-hour match. A lot of the women can win the first three or four rounds having dropped no more than four games. That doesn't really happen in the men's [tournament]. There are a lot of tough matches out there."

Action Jackson
02-23-2007, 06:16 AM
No, its not. Women's tennis generates more money than other sports you mentioned. And women playing tennis should be paid appropriately. Enough with the days of chivanistic elitism. Futher, I would point out the socio-economic reasons behind these disprencies. .

Go ahead and point them out then. How is it chauvanistic elitism, when there are women who don't agree with it?

Does womens tennis generate the same revenue as the men or close to it? If they did, then why are they so reluctant to produce figures showing what they generate. The numbers mirkaland post show a clear differential, so how is the balance all of a sudden going to change for Slams?

j'torian, I forgot there isn't a business and economic side to professional sport.

baubaby
02-23-2007, 06:20 AM
Wasn't 'Fat Dave' ranked #3 last year? :retard:

And as for those results you listed, how convenient of you to use the least convincing women's Slam win ever to aid your argument, well done you :yeah:

:rolleyes:
I was trying to illustrate the two extremes. A women's road to the final will never be near as difficult as Safin's run because of the best of 3 format. I picked Amelie's run because it highlights all the things that bolster my argument......hardly any time spent on the court to win a GS, choking, quitting, lack of honor. lack of consideration for the paying fan....

Jlee
02-23-2007, 06:40 AM
Go ahead and point them out then. How is it chauvanistic elitism, when there are women who don't agree with it?

Does womens tennis generate the same revenue as the men or close to it? If they did, then why are they so reluctant to produce figures showing what they generate. The numbers mirkaland post show a clear differential, so how is the balance all of a sudden going to change for Slams?

j'torian, I forgot there isn't a business and economic side to professional sport.

I'm sure that this difference exists, as evidenced by those numbers, but why did Wimbledon not have a concrete way of calculating that difference? Why hang on to a small differential that doesn't seem to have a factual basis? Either pay the equal prize money, or come up with an exact method of calculating how much more money the men bring in as far as ticket sales go. I'm perfectly fine with that. Hanging on to it for the sake of tradition only is what's completely senseless, and that's what they were doing.

nobama
02-23-2007, 09:41 AM
I'm sure that this difference exists, as evidenced by those numbers, but why did Wimbledon not have a concrete way of calculating that difference? Why hang on to a small differential that doesn't seem to have a factual basis? Either pay the equal prize money, or come up with an exact method of calculating how much more money the men bring in as far as ticket sales go. I'm perfectly fine with that. Hanging on to it for the sake of tradition only is what's completely senseless, and that's what they were doing.
The difference in prize money between Federer and Mauresmo was 4.7%. Has anyone at the All England Club ever said how they came up with that figure?

thesupreme
02-23-2007, 09:43 AM
Absolute disgrace...just another example of the PC nature of the modern world ruining otherwise rational idea in the misguided notion of equality. Are there other jobs (where people are doing essentially the same tasks) where people work differing amounts of hours at different skill levels but get paid equally purely because of gender? If so, every woman would be working part time....

johnnylad
02-23-2007, 11:04 AM
All tennis players are equal but some are more equal than others

Hugh Jaas
02-23-2007, 11:53 AM
Absolute disgrace...just another example of the PC nature of the modern world ruining otherwise rational idea in the misguided notion of equality. Are there other jobs (where people are doing essentially the same tasks) where people work differing amounts of hours at different skill levels but get paid equally purely because of gender? If so, every woman would be working part time....

it isnt "PC NATURE GONE BAD" stop reading the sun newspaper!

One question

Do women play best of 5 like the men?



















No.


until they play like REAL athletes NOT Russian production line orgasm fests i Will give the WTA scene a miss thank you very much sir.

Beat
02-23-2007, 12:56 PM
Equal PAY for equal PLAY.

i never understood this argument, because it basically means that roger federer should be paid less when he wins a slam without dropping a set as opposed to winning a slam having to play several 5-set-matches.

Beat
02-23-2007, 12:58 PM
until they play like REAL athletes NOT Russian production line orgasm fests i Will give the WTA scene a miss thank you very much sir.
:help: you do know you sound rather mysogynistic, don't you?

aulus
02-23-2007, 01:06 PM
:retard: :retard: :retard:
so they earn the same in challengers as they do in majors? wow I didnt know that, thanks :worship:

wtf are you talking about???? i didn't say anything like that.

if they go by who draws revenue, the low ranked players would make basically nothing. not enough to continue professionally. but ATP subsidizes them with the money the top players draw so that the lowly players can stay on tour.

joeb_uk
02-23-2007, 01:23 PM
Some guys take on it.

Tommy Haas



Andy Murray -



Mardy Fish -

Yeah good comments from Haas, read them on TV last night, and thought GREAT, finally a player with the balls to say no its not right.


And christ, wtf is with murray (another one who has bottled it, I expected better from him), his recent nickname from Glenn is matching well - Lady legs.

joeb_uk
02-23-2007, 01:27 PM
Murray's changed his tune

There we go! Booya :D Well done Murray, for once I agree with you. Nice comments. I didn't think he was the kind to bottle it like the rest. He must have been paid off to say his earlier comments.

scoobs
02-23-2007, 01:38 PM
It's political correctness gone MAD!!!!

I should read the Daily Mail more - I really don't hear that enough in my life :rolleyes:

scoobs
02-23-2007, 01:39 PM
Murray's changed his tune
What's the source for this quote?

joeb_uk
02-23-2007, 01:48 PM
What's the source for this quote?

I think the first one was the fake! Maybe someone is playing with our minds :shrug:

scoobs
02-23-2007, 01:50 PM
I've read the first quote attributed to Murray - I don't know where the second one came from:

Murray said: "I don't think it's fair that the women get paid the same as the guys, because if you look at it, the guys have the potential to play a five-and-a-half-hour match. A lot of the women can win the first three or four rounds having dropped no more than four games. That doesn't really happen in the men's [tournament]. There are a lot of tough matches out there."

He added: "[The prize money] is something that everyone has argued about. I think the majority of people who come to watch during the first week at Wimbledon will be coming to watch one of the male matches.

"Obviously, when the big names like Sharapova and Henin and those sort of players come out, people will turn up to watch them, but I just think there's more interest at the start of the tournament [in the men] than there is for the women."

Shrinking Violet
02-23-2007, 02:07 PM
The quote from Murray I posted comes from The Express - http://www.express.co.uk/sport.html?fSKU=2007-02-23T040326Z_01_L22013909_RTRIDST_0_OUKSP-UK-TENNIS-MEN-MEMPHIS-HAAS.XML

There was something in one of the papers today talking about equal prize-money and it said that Roger Federer played 202 games to win Wimbledon last year whereas Amelie Mauresmo only played 142. 60 games of a difference between the two and they both get paid the same ammount and that is taking the absolute best in the world who apparently has it easy. It also pointed out that women could play more doubles due to the lack of five set matches to boost their earnings.

Canada is not party to the equality movement yet, because its two Rogers Cup tournaments are under different authorities, Tennis Canada spokesman Mike Cvitkovic said. The top men's prize is $400,000 of a total purse $2.45-million, while the top women's prize is $196,900 from an overall purse of $1.34-million.

"Both our WTA and ATP events are top-tier, just below the Grand Slams, but the product delivery is different," Cvitkovic said.

"On the men's side we are part of the ATP Masters Series that delivers mandatory top-10 player participation. Over the past five years, we have averaged close to nine of the top 10 players," he said. "On the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour side, we are promised six of the top 10 and have averaged 5.5 over the past few years. The prize money level is also set by the ATP and the WTA, and we follow their guidelines."

At Wimbledon in 2006, Mauresmo was paid only 5 per cent less than Federer for about 75 per cent as much time on the court, according to a report in the British newspaper The Guardian.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070223.TENNIS23/TPStory/Sports

goldenlox
02-23-2007, 02:37 PM
I'm surprised how nobody understands this. Wimbledon is a brand. The US media will make them a laughing stock if they keep paying the women slightly less.
It's all about public image. Wimbledon can triple their prizemoney and still make a fortune.
But if the brand is continuously ridiculed by the US media, it's value could diminish.

thesupreme
02-23-2007, 02:38 PM
it isnt "PC NATURE GONE BAD" stop reading the sun newspaper!
One question

Do women play best of 5 like the men?


Whether you happen to attribute it to the Sun or anything else is it done in the spirit of PC, a disctinctly modern affliction that pretends to be progress....what other reason could it be?? Its a movement founded on incesscant complaining about something that was rationally justified eons ago that was i'm afraid right...

I totally stand by the rationale of my original post and have lost a little respect for the All England Club in this instance, for giving in to the haters...:o

oz_boz
02-23-2007, 02:56 PM
Do women play best of 5 like the men?


One question: should Federer earn less for his 2007 AO victory than Safin for his in 2005? Should an RG crown be worth more than a Wimbly one? Should Cathy Freeman earn more than Michael Johnson since she takes 6.5 secs more to run 400 m?

That argument is worth nothing.

Logically speaking this is a bad decision.

From the point of view of the publicity, the emotional core of the argument and the endless debate this argument has generated year in year out and detracted from the sport itself, this is absolutely the right thing to do.

Best post of the thread. Thank you scoobs.

embellish
02-23-2007, 03:51 PM
What's the source for this quote?

Originally I read it in the Scotsman

http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis.cfm?id=930362006


It's political correctness gone MAD!!!!

I should read the Daily Mail more - I really don't hear that enough in my life :rolleyes:

However hears the Daily Mail one as well :devil:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html%3Fin_article_id=392414&in_page_id=1770

Hugh Jaas
02-23-2007, 04:03 PM
Let’s see…

Less time on the court. i.e. fewer sets.
Less energy expended. i.e. fewer sets
Less speed on the court required.

More time to react to opponent’s shot.
More attention to one’s attire.
More endorsements, owing to the fact that “sex sells”. e.g. Kornikova et al.

Now Wimbledon, in order to relieve their irrational pangs of guilt that the WTA has pushed on them, has made the compensation the same. What a crock!!! Grow up people! In the real world things are NOT EQUAL. Don’t force equality where it does not exist or you’ll be saddled with mediocrity.

GlennMirnyi
02-23-2007, 04:07 PM
I've read the first quote attributed to Murray - I don't know where the second one came from:

Murray said: "I don't think it's fair that the women get paid the same as the guys, because if you look at it, the guys have the potential to play a five-and-a-half-hour match. A lot of the women can win the first three or four rounds having dropped no more than four games. That doesn't really happen in the men's [tournament]. There are a lot of tough matches out there."

He added: "[The prize money] is something that everyone has argued about. I think the majority of people who come to watch during the first week at Wimbledon will be coming to watch one of the male matches.

"Obviously, when the big names like Sharapova and Henin and those sort of players come out, people will turn up to watch them, but I just think there's more interest at the start of the tournament [in the men] than there is for the women."


Murray has said something decent for a change. :hatoff:

nobama
02-23-2007, 04:27 PM
The quote from Murray I posted comes from The Express - http://www.express.co.uk/sport.html?fSKU=2007-02-23T040326Z_01_L22013909_RTRIDST_0_OUKSP-UK-TENNIS-MEN-MEMPHIS-HAAS.XML

There was something in one of the papers today talking about equal prize-money and it said that Roger Federer played 202 games to win Wimbledon last year whereas Amelie Mauresmo only played 142. 60 games of a difference between the two and they both get paid the same ammount and that is taking the absolute best in the world who apparently has it easy. It also pointed out that women could play more doubles due to the lack of five set matches to boost their earnings.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070223.TENNIS23/TPStory/SportsAs someone else pointed out Federer played fewer games to win AO this year than Safin did in 2005. Does that mean he deserves less? Since when does playing more mean you should earn more? It's not about how much you play because players aren't paid by the hour or by the number of games/sets they win. Again it's an economic argument. If the men are subsidizing the women that's wrong. What I'd be interested to know is how Wimbledon came up with the 4.7% difference in prize money between the mens champion and the womens champion. How did they arrive at that percentage?

scoobs
02-23-2007, 04:52 PM
Clearly Murray has changed his tune. And I agree with his revised stance.

It's a done deal, people. Nothing more to see here.

tangerine_dream
02-23-2007, 04:52 PM
Do women play best of 5 like the men?
Does Davydenko sell out stadiums like Sharapova does?

Action Jackson
02-23-2007, 04:59 PM
And I stand by what I said before: if this is an economic issue then players like Davydenko and Horna should be getting paid far less for winning a Round of 16 day match than Federer would be paid for a Round of 16 night match with far more people in the stands. (And sorry, but the counterargument someone brought up in response to me about doubles and juniors needing to be paid equally to satisfy my notions of equality is an invalid slippery slope argument. Since when did doubles and juniors even have the same draw size as the men's and women's singles? We're not even talking about the same type of tournament at that point.)

And I'm done in this trainwreck of a thread. :wavey:

It's the overall grouping just not the ones at the top, so the Davydenko/Horna argument isn't valid as they are part of the group that generates the higher amount of overall revenue, therefore they deserve to earn the higher percentage of the prizemoney and shouldn't be subsidising the women and that is exactly what they are doing.

If not, then why haven't the WTA come out with figures to prove that their earning power is as good or on par with the men. That's right, cause they can't, so they used emotional arguments to push their case.

Hugh Jaas
02-23-2007, 05:00 PM
Does Davydenko sell out stadiums like Sharapova does?

SEX sells. thanks for pointing that one out Sherlock.

tangerine_dream
02-23-2007, 05:21 PM
SEX sells. thanks for pointing that one out Sherlock.
Sex sells on the men's side too and sex appeal isn't the reason why Sharapova also has a lot of female fans.

Whatever sells doesn't matter, she brings in the crowds, therefore the $$$, unlike most of the men's top ten.

Venus and Serena sell out everywhere too. I didn't realize they were such sex kittens. :cat:

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-23-2007, 05:24 PM
If people are entertained, I see no problem with it. After all, I would rather watch Serena-Justine, than Ljubicic-Davydenko any day of the week.

GlennMirnyi
02-23-2007, 05:29 PM
Preposterous this defense of pure "audience" when we know what pays the players are the sponsors and not the audience they bring to the stadiums. More preposterous is that people defend Sharapova, someone that can't even serve and doesn't know how to volley.

And it was taking long for you to appear, Andres#1fangirl. As you say you only like competitive matches, why would you watch the 6/1 6/2 women's finals? :lol:

yakuzaninja
02-23-2007, 05:33 PM
WTA shouldn't entertain anyone except for the odd final. I found taking Rochus-Grosjean off to replace with a Sharapova beatdown on Eurosport quite offensive.

GlennMirnyi
02-23-2007, 05:38 PM
WTA shouldn't entertain anyone except for the odd final. I found taking Rochus-Grosjean off to replace with a Sharapova beatdown on Eurosport quite offensive.

Agreed.

sondraj06
02-23-2007, 05:41 PM
It seems to me tennis fans just have to be upset about something.....RR format......Women making equal prize money......Hewittt being alive.......Roddick being alive.......Nadal being alive and allowed to continue his reign at no 2........women's tennis being allowed......the only thing that makes the people on this forum happens is if Fed keeps winning. Boy when when he starts losing there are going to be a lot of suicides attributed to him. Unhappy people:dance:

Andre'sNo1Fan
02-23-2007, 05:46 PM
Preposterous this defense of pure "audience" when we know what pays the players are the sponsors and not the audience they bring to the stadiums. More preposterous is that people defend Sharapova, someone that can't even serve and doesn't know how to volley.

And it was taking long for you to appear, Andres#1fangirl. As you say you only like competitive matches, why would you watch the 6/1 6/2 women's finals? :lol:
Yeah, this is of course in comparison to all the close, interesting matches Federer plays.

GlennMirnyi
02-23-2007, 05:49 PM
It seems to me tennis fans just have to be upset about something.....RR format......Women making equal prize money......Hewittt being alive.......Roddick being alive.......Nadal being alive and allowed to continue his reign at no 2........women's tennis being allowed......the only thing that makes the people on this forum happens is if Fed keeps winning. Boy when when he starts losing there are going to be a lot of suicides attributed to him. Unhappy people:dance:

As the amazing F1 driver Nelson Piquet used to say: #2 and last one is the same thing. ;) :lol:

sondraj06
02-23-2007, 05:53 PM
As the amazing F1 driver Nelson Piquet used to say: #2 and last one is the same thing. ;) :lol:


well I don't know who this amazing F1 driver is, but it is sure a lot better being last place no2 then last place....um what rank is your favorite player again. :)

GlennMirnyi
02-23-2007, 06:00 PM
well I don't know who this amazing F1 driver is, but it is sure a lot better being last place no2 then last place....um what rank is your favorite player again. :)

#1.

About the driver, three-times world champion. ;)