McEnroe critical of Wimbledon inequality [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

McEnroe critical of Wimbledon inequality

WhataQT
10-16-2006, 11:53 PM
McEnroe critical of Wimbledon inequality
By Mark Hodgkinson in Madrid
(Filed: 16/10/2006)



As opinionated and forthright as ever, John McEnroe has attacked the All England Club for their decision not to award equal prize money to the men and women at the Wimbledon Championships.

advertisementMcEnroe, a three-time Wimbledon singles champion, said that a failure to pay women the same as men was sending out the wrong message to "society".

Wimbledon is the only one of the four grand slam events not to pay the same amount to its men's and women's champions, with Roger Federer earning £655,000 at this season's tournament, some £30,000 more than Amelie Mauresmo.

The Australian Open and the US Open, the more politically correct of the grand slams, pay the same amount to all men and women, while the French Open rewarded their men's and women's champions equally for the first time this season, although all other female competitors earned less than their male counterparts.

McEnroe strongly rejected one of the arguments put forward by the All England that men's matches are the best of five sets, while the women play over three sets, and therefore do not deserve parity of pay.

"I know people argue that the top women have easier matches in the same week, their matches don't last as long, and therefore they don't deserve to earn as much as men.

"I would probably have said the same thing when I was playing, but that isn't the point. I went to see the movie, King Kong, it was too long, being long didn't make it better.

"So I don't believe that argument about the matches being longer is relevant," McEnroe told the November issue of GQ magazine.

"This issue isn't whether men are better than women; it is sending a message of equality to society. I have four girls and two boys, and as a parent, I feel the example tennis is setting – with the exception of Wimbledon – is tremendous.

"It is saying that, unlike any other sport, we value women and their contribution as much as we do men. "I think that is terrific," the New Yorker said.

"In soccer, basketball, golf, any sport you care to name, women earn a fraction of what men earn. What sort of signal does that send to young people? That women aren't good enough, that they are not worth watching? I am proud of what tennis has done there. I just wish the All England Club would fall in line with everyone else."

McEnroe also spoke of his admiration for Andy Murray's will to win. "I don't know whether it's because he comes from Scotland and they always feel like the poor relations to England, or because of what happened to him when he was caught up in the Dunblane shootings, even though he was only on the periphery, but there is something in there he uses to motivate himself.

"He is chippy, he has a bit of anger, he has something burning inside and it drives him on. I like that about him, it's what gives him the strength to win," he said.

Here at this week's Madrid Masters, should Murray defeat a qualifier in the opening round he will then play Ivan Ljubicic, the Croatian world No 3, in round two, while fellow Briton, Tim Henman, a wild card, opens against Spain's Fernando Verdasco.

www.telegraph.co.uk/hodgkinson

GlennMirnyi
10-16-2006, 11:56 PM
Why should women get the same unless they play 5 sets, like men?

Byrd
10-16-2006, 11:57 PM
King kong is a good film :)

LocoPorElTenis
10-17-2006, 12:39 AM
Why should women get the same unless they play 5 sets, like men?

So according to this reasoning, the men's champion should be paid 60% more if he wins all of his matches in 5 sets than if he wins all his matches in 3 sets? :wavey:

(I know this has been debated to death, but can't help pointing out some obvious fallacies).

GlennMirnyi
10-17-2006, 01:14 AM
You got my point. Men play for 5 hours and women rarely go over 3. They can't get the same.

MisterQ
10-17-2006, 02:11 AM
They're not paid by the hour, they're paid to bring in fans and deliver quality tennis.

McEnroe brings up some nice points. :yeah:

mishagirl
10-17-2006, 02:13 AM
You got my point. Men play for 5 hours and women rarely go over 3. They can't get the same.

thats the point McEnroe's trying to make, it doesnt matter. in their own way the women work hard to.

rofe
10-17-2006, 02:16 AM
:yawn: @ JMac

GlennMirnyi
10-17-2006, 02:20 AM
They're not paid by the hour, they're paid to bring in fans and deliver quality tennis.

McEnroe brings up some nice points. :yeah:

If that's the real deal women should get nothing.

zicofirol
10-17-2006, 02:27 AM
failure to pay women the same as men was sending out the wrong message to "society".


So he wants to send the message that people will not be paid according to their productiveness, but according to their sex, that seems rather sexist.

If women brought in the same amount of money that men do for the tournaments then they would get paid equally, but they dont so they shouldnt be paid more.

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 02:38 AM
So he wants to send the message that people will not be paid according to their productiveness, but according to their sex, that seems rather sexist.

If women brought in the same amount of money that men do for the tournaments then they would get paid equally, but they dont so they shouldnt be paid more.

Stop trying to be logical, we have been through this debate before. I mean guys are considered cavemen cause the ATP generates more sponsorship, higher revenue and ticket sales than the WTA.:)

RickDaStick
10-17-2006, 02:58 AM
STFU Jonny. Women should NEVER earn the same amout of money in any sport, especially tennis. Whoever says a top woman who usually in early rounds plays no more then about 15 games should earn more then a man whos out there for hours is a huge :retard:

16681
10-17-2006, 03:18 AM
Isn't the ATP thinking of going more toward the best of three themselves? I think if both men and women play best of three then the pay should be equal. But if the men have to play best of five and the women don't, the women should be paid less.

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 03:21 AM
Isn't the ATP thinking of going more toward the best of three themselves? I think if both men and women play best of three then the pay should be equal. But if the men have to play best of five and the women don't, the women should be paid less.

Not in the Slams, cause the ITF run those. The ATP is doing it for their events.

Sheek
10-17-2006, 03:51 AM
King Kong was awesome lol, wtf is JMac talkin about

r2473
10-17-2006, 04:04 AM
Why should women get the same unless they play 5 sets, like men?

Tennis players are not day-laborers. Who cares if they play one set or 25 sets to win a match. What should determine their pay is how much they bring in. Period. This is not too difficult to do. Check ticket sales and advertising dollars between mens and womens matches. Sure, this is not an exact science, but advertisers do it all the time when deciding how much to pay for spots. This is also what, in essence, decides if these "overpaid athletes" in the big sports (American Football, Football, American Baseball, American Basketball) are truely overpaid. It is why professional golf has such big pay days now in the "Tiger Era".

I think in the past, women deserved less than men based on the above logic. Now I think that more people are spending their hard earned money on women's tennis tickets and their scarce time watching womens tennis on TV.

I don't have the exact figures, so I will not say if pay should be equal. But, the decision should be a pure business decision. Nothing more....nothing less.

Action Jackson
10-17-2006, 04:10 AM
Tennis players are not day-laborers. Who cares if they play one set or 25 sets to win a match. What should determine their pay is how much they bring in. Period. This is not too difficult to do. Check ticket sales and advertising dollars between mens and womens matches. Sure, this is not an exact science, but advertisers do it all the time when deciding how much to pay for spots. This is also what, in essence, decides if these "overpaid athletes" in the big sports (American Football, Football, American Baseball, American Basketball) are truely overpaid. It is why professional golf has such big pay days now in the "Tiger Era".

I think in the past, women deserved less than men based on the above logic. Now I think that more people are spending their hard earned money on women's tennis tickets and their scarce time watching womens tennis on TV.

I don't have the exact figures, so I will not say if pay should be equal. But, the decision should be a pure business decision. Nothing more....nothing less.

Good points, however if womens tennis is so good, then wouldn't the prizemoney on their tour, and all the other stuff mentioned previously be on par or at least 90% of what the men earn. It's not that hard to find out the figures, but it would be good if the WTA produced these figures.

General Suburbia
10-17-2006, 04:50 AM
I agree with what JMac said about King Kong though. It was just Jackson's desperate follow up to LOTR.

Rex
10-17-2006, 05:51 AM
the whole things crap, the women should be paid the same amount, they are being paid by butts in seats {dont they do that?} NOt by the hours they play.

Guybrush
10-17-2006, 08:40 AM
Why should women get the same unless they play 5 sets, like men?

http://www.monitor.hr/smilies/amen.gif

Beat
10-17-2006, 08:51 AM
"I went to see the movie, King Kong, it was too long, being long didn't make it better."

:lol: good one :yeah:

BORO77
10-17-2006, 09:26 AM
The women should get about 10% of the $$ they are getting now.
WTA is very boring and not many people like to watch this funny sport:)

I like to watch Ana I. and Maria K. playing doubles:worship:
but the rest is really not interesting, with few exceptions maybe.

It is not about the length of the match but about the quality of
the matches and the abilities of the players
and of the effort you need to make to become a professional ATP players
cant be compared with womens tennis.

nobama
10-17-2006, 11:14 AM
You got my point. Men play for 5 hours and women rarely go over 3. They can't get the same.So then you think guys should be paid for how long they're on court? If you look at this years US Open winners, Sharapova was on court a total of 13 hours,14 minutes. Roger Federer was on court a total of 13 hours, 53 minutes. Nadal's total time on court was exactly 13 hours, even though he played two less matches than Federer did. Who cares how much time they spend on court? Players are not and should not be paid by the hour or by how many games/sets they play. If there is an argument for women being payed less it is what others have already brought up, economics.

Ariadne
10-17-2006, 11:59 AM
Speaking as a woman, I disagree wholeheartedly in awarding equal prize money to women tennis players who only play three sets unlike the men who play five. I groaned inwardly when someone suggested that for women to receive equal pay to the men they should also play five sets - God forbid! On the whole I'm just so glad we don't have to sit through five sets being played by women who don't have the same stamina as the men, unless they are of the same calibre of Martina in her hey day or the Williams' sisters - very unlikely. Please. please don't give in to this unfair demand for the sake of the word 'equality' which would be such an injustice to the men. Besides, I would be going slowly mad waiting for wilting women players to finish their five setters whilst waiting for the men to come on court to begin theirs! Please don't break with tradition - it doesn't need fixing because it's completely fair as it is. I cannot understand how women tennis players expect the same pay for less output. "Equity" is by far more relevant and important in this context than some ignorant conception of "equality" steeped in injustice.

Castafiore
10-17-2006, 12:08 PM
1. These players don't get paid by the hour or by the set.
2. Maybe some of you don't like to see WTA tennis but in general, it's quite popular, I think.
3. Some of the female players do bring in a lot of money and attention to the sport so why not reward them for it?
4. Women are physically not as strong as men, that's a basic fact but that doesn't mean that a match between women can't be exciting even if it doesn't last as long.

nobama
10-17-2006, 12:56 PM
What about men that play 3 vs. men that play 5? Should a male player who goes an entire slam with out playing 4 or 5 sets be paid less than one who has matches that go to 5 sets? Should Federer or Roddick be paid less than Nadal because they don't spend as much time on court? How can using the # of sets played or hours on court be a fair way of determining what someone gets paid? Just because you're out on court longer doesn't mean your match was of a higher quality or of more value to the consumer. :shrug:

alfonsojose
10-17-2006, 01:15 PM
King Kong sucks. I mean, the movie :angel:

Neely
10-17-2006, 01:23 PM
Alone by the fact that the men are required to win three sets, I would not wholeheartedly think that both singles winners would deserve to earn the same amount. I don't care so much if the men's winner gets 650000 and the women's winner "only" 620000 pounds. However, I can understand both points and views of the people for and against equal pay.
Nevertheless, the relative adjustment to the men's and women's prize money has already been also made at Wimbledon in the last years and in the long run Wimbledon will most likely offer the same prize money for women and men, too, and that can't be said for most parts of our societies in foreseeable future when comparing the incomes of women and men in the same job position and with the same education and skills.

Ariadne
10-17-2006, 01:30 PM
WHY do women only play three sets these days?

I can accept that in the 1860's women in whalebone corsets devoid of personal trainers, nutritionists and coaches, having probably on average five or six children were not exactly cut out to zap heavy wooden raquets about for a 5-setter.

As Wimbledon has changed the hallowed rules of old by introducing tiebreaks and changing the size and structure of raquets and colour of balls...using technology (Hawkeye!!) etc. Why oh why doesn't Wimbledon update their rules for women and acknowlege that if women want equal pay they do equal work!!

Women have fought for years, in all walks of life, for equal pay but now they are turning the tables on the men by clamouring for the same remeuneration as the men for half the work!!

Women, according to medical data possess more stamina than men and are able to endure and maintain over a longer period of time than men!!!

I cannot think of any other sport where women are treated in such a sexist manner.

In athletics, the 100yds isn't reduced to 80, a couple of hurdles aren't removed for women competitors.

The Golf Federation doesn't allow women to finish their round on the 15th hole. Showjumping doesn't cut out four jumps for the women riders and Point to Point doesn't shorten it's course.

I could go on and on with similar analogies but I think these will suffice to illustrate my frustration and anger about women and 3-set matches.

Allow women to play five sets. THEN they can clamour for equal pay even if their standard apart from the top 4 or 5 is well below that of the mens.

If Navratilova has been pushing for 5 sets, if not me, a mere mortal of anonymity, surely she has some weight and valuable input? Hope Springs Eternal ...

The Daviator
10-17-2006, 01:47 PM
WHY do women only play three sets these days?

I can accept that in the 1860's women in whalebone corsets devoid of personal trainers, nutritionists and coaches, having probably on average five or six children were not exactly cut out to zap heavy wooden raquets about for a 5-setter.

As Wimbledon has changed the hallowed rules of old by introducing tiebreaks and changing the size and structure of raquets and colour of balls...using technology (Hawkeye!!) etc. Why oh why doesn't Wimbledon update their rules for women and acknowlege that if women want equal pay they do equal work!!

Women have fought for years, in all walks of life, for equal pay but now they are turning the tables on the men by clamouring for the same remeuneration as the men for half the work!!

Women, according to medical data possess more stamina than men and are able to endure and maintain over a longer period of time than men!!!

I cannot think of any other sport where women are treated in such a sexist manner.

In athletics, the 100yds isn't reduced to 80, a couple of hurdles aren't removed for women competitors.

The Golf Federation doesn't allow women to finish their round on the 15th hole. Showjumping doesn't cut out four jumps for the women riders and Point to Point doesn't shorten it's course.

I could go on and on with similar analogies but I think these will suffice to illustrate my frustration and anger about women and 3-set matches.

Allow women to play five sets. THEN they can clamour for equal pay even if their standard apart from the top 4 or 5 is well below that of the mens.

If Navratilova has been pushing for 5 sets, if not me, a mere mortal of anonymity, surely she has some weight and valuable input? Hope Springs Eternal ...

See post #23 :)

I just thought I'd add something, all this 'women shouldn't', no, women ARE paid equal amounts to men, at the Australian Open, the US Open, and in the RG final, and soon I'm sure, RG completely...

Let's face it, no matter how much you moan about 5/3 sets or economy, the changes have been made, and for Wimbledon to be the only one not to do this is ridiculous, at least if Wimbledon changed it's rules, people would stop bringing this up every year, the difference is so small anyway, it's just stupid to carry on, either give them the same, or have a difference in prize money that actually makes sense...

GlennMirnyi
10-17-2006, 02:07 PM
Women want some equality, right?
If they want that, they should get their butts out and train a lot, as their games suck. When they have about the same level a men's top 50 has, then they can ask ITF to make their matches best of 5 sets and pledge for equal prizes.

The Daviator
10-17-2006, 02:09 PM
Women want some equality, right?
If they want that, they should get their butts out and train a lot, as their games suck. When they have about the same level a men's top 50 has, then they can ask ITF to make their matches best of 5 sets and pledge for equal prizes.

They already have equal prizes :o

Bagelicious
10-17-2006, 03:46 PM
Speaking as a woman, I disagree wholeheartedly in awarding equal prize money to women tennis players who only play three sets unlike the men who play five. Please don't break with tradition - it doesn't need fixing because it's completely fair as it is. I cannot understand how women tennis players expect the same pay for less output. "Equity" is by far more relevant and important in this context than some ignorant conception of "equality" steeped in injustice.

I hope you also know that women get paid less at tournaments where they play 3 setters just like men. I'm sure you think that's fair as well, since you can't stand women's tennis - just like every other spectator out there?

Bagelicious
10-17-2006, 03:49 PM
Why should women get the same unless they play 5 sets, like men?

At the smaller tournaments where men only play 3 setters, how come they are still paid more than women?

MarieS
10-17-2006, 04:33 PM
At the smaller tournaments where men only play 3 setters, how come they are still paid more than women?

Women get paid more at Kremlin Cup for example. Why is everyone so up in arms about this? 250 grand here, 250 grand there, what's the difference to these girls? And if you think this is all about social examples, it isn't, because salaries and finance in sports are so astronomical and so far removed from real life that they do not have a trickle down effect to the rest of society. You think women get paid less b/c their boss looks at wimbledon and go, oh look, they pay less so we should too? or if wimbledon decided tomorrow that they'll award equal prize money, you think that's going to change anything? I don't think so.

Metis
10-17-2006, 04:39 PM
Women get paid more at Kremlin Cup for example. Why is everyone so up in arms about this? 250 grand here, 250 grand there, what's the difference to these girls? And if you think this is all about social examples, it isn't, because salaries and finance in sports are so astronomical and so far removed from real life that they do not have a trickle down effect to the rest of society. You think women get paid less b/c their boss looks at wimbledon and go, oh look, they pay less so we should too? or if wimbledon decided tomorrow that they'll award equal prize money, you think that's going to change anything? I don't think so.
Kremlin Cup is tier I for women (equivalent to master series) whereas of lower importance for the men.

MarieS
10-17-2006, 04:40 PM
Kremlin Cup is tier I for women (equivalent to master series) whereas of lower importance forthe men.

Still the same number of sets, no?

tangerine_dream
10-17-2006, 04:44 PM
STFU Jonny. Women should NEVER earn the same amout of money in any sport, especially tennis. Whoever says a top woman who usually in early rounds plays no more then about 15 games should earn more then a man whos out there for hours is a huge :retard:
I love Santoro's marathon matches but I don't think most people pay money to see him play they way they do Sharapova.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-17-2006, 05:17 PM
Women want some equality, right?
If they want that, they should get their butts out and train a lot, as their games suck. When they have about the same level a men's top 50 has, then they can ask ITF to make their matches best of 5 sets and pledge for equal prizes.

:worship:

Completely agree. We are the same side on this issue. :D

lotus333
10-17-2006, 05:55 PM
I certainly don't think men should make more than women just because they play three out of five in the majors.

I think the question revolves exclusively around who is producing the revenue from which the pay comes. How much of the gate comes from women's play; how much of the TV revenue comes from women's play? If it's 50%, they should get 50%. If it's not, they shouldn't. I think it ought to be totally merit driven.

Metis
10-17-2006, 06:21 PM
Still the same number of sets, no?

There are tournaments of different importance in terms of points earned etc. in both ATP and WTA. You have to compare events of equivalent importance.

For example Miami is masters series tournament for men and Tier I for women (they get equal money there :))

DrJules
10-17-2006, 06:24 PM
Does anyone know why women do not play 5 sets at grand slams? I cannot think of any good reason; there was a belief women could not run marathons, but they do now.

Ariadne
10-17-2006, 06:38 PM
Does anyone know why women do not play 5 sets at grand slams? I cannot think of any good reason; there was a belief women could not run marathons, but they do now.

ITA, I addressed the same question in one of my earlier posts!

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=4290501&postcount=29

KaxMisha
10-17-2006, 07:03 PM
What a load of politically correct cow dung. The number of people who care about women's tennis is much smaller than the number of people who care about men's tennis. Paying them different amounts isn't only okay - it's preferable and the only right thing to do. If women's tennis were more popular, they should get payed more. The men draw the majority of the crowds to these events and everyone knows that. The supply = demand equation doesn't hold up if women are to be payed the same amounts in prize money as men, and that is stupid. It's as simple as that.

KaxMisha
10-17-2006, 07:04 PM
I certainly don't think men should make more than women just because they play three out of five in the majors.

I think the question revolves exclusively around who is producing the revenue from which the pay comes. How much of the gate comes from women's play; how much of the TV revenue comes from women's play? If it's 50%, they should get 50%. If it's not, they shouldn't. I think it ought to be totally merit driven.

Amen. I agree with EVERYTHING. I should have read the entire thread before I wrote my reply. :)

World Beater
10-17-2006, 08:20 PM
lol...out come the feminazis...its economics and capitalism really...some people are too :retard: to understand.

World Beater
10-17-2006, 10:14 PM
Sure, heaven forbid that economics and capitalism not remain the only reasons for the existence of competitive sport.

thats the way the majority of the world works. tennis is a business at the end of the day just like everything else.

KaxMisha
10-17-2006, 10:19 PM
thats the way the majority of the world works. tennis is a business at the end of the day just like everything else.

Word.