[latso]

Originally Posted by stebs

Bearing in mind that was a Federer - Nadal final, I don't think it's plausible that the women's final was close to being as popular. Those two are still massive draws for the majority of viewers, especially when both of them are competing with each other.

That's even a the best possible case for comparison - The ultimate GS final ever, The Fedal against quite a boring final in the WTA.

If the numbers are close, then we have a case, coz i can imagine that the finals are happening during the night in Asia, so not as much spectators in China, compared to match during their day.

Anyways, would be curious to see.

[latso]

Well, we can't see anything as

While there was no official encomium from the top leadership for her extraordinary feat of becoming the first Chinese player to win a Grand Slam, the state television telecast her matches live while the official newspapers praised her to the sky.

We'll have to check Nike's numbers in China after this final... j/k

But despite there isn't solid info, i'm sure the big sharks are making their own forecasts and a Fedal would sell less than Li Na - whoever final.

[Dmitry Verdasco]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

Given the women's final had an AMERICAN in it and the USO men's final was on a Monday night instead of a Sunday, you have no basis for an argument.

And the US doesn't represent the world.

You're reaching now

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Dmitry Verdasco

You're reaching now

Don't hug me thanks.

[Sham Kay]

118 pages of bull. Now comparing this with an average life example:

There's a Mcdonalds down the road. The employees there serve an average of say 5 people per minute. They earn £7.60 per hour.

There's a Burger King across the street from the Mcdonalds. The employees there serve an average of about 3 people per hour. They earn £7.60 per hour.

Now if Mcdonalds were the ATP and Burger King were WTA, which Tennis organisation sells the cheapest double cheeseburgers? Wait.. no, there was a point in there somewhere.

[MuzzahLovah]

I think having equal prize money brings a lot more to tennis than it takes away from it.

Especially since the top women include players are from Russia, China, and America, the important places. The men only have one guy from an important country with a big audience.

[MuzzahLovah]

Originally Posted by GOATsol

I agree that the quality of the WTA is low now, but it really does seem like many of you are insulting women in general.

MTF is steeped in misogyny, like much of the internet. It's pathetic.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by MuzzahLovah

I think having equal prize money brings a lot more to tennis than it takes away from it.

Especially since the top women include players are from Russia, China, and America, the important places. The men only have one guy from an important country with a big audience.

yeah forget about all these pointless little crappy countries like Serbia and the Czech Republic etc

[Benny_Maths]

Originally Posted by buzz

Tennis is not that nationalistic. Both Federer and Nadal have a lot of international fans. I would rather watch a Federer first round then a 4th round of some mug of my own nationality (even if he would be ranked 10-5).

Pretty much. Just as an example, for me the 2004 US Open final was .

[Hewitt =Legend]

I'm all for equality in tennis but Murray brought up an excellent point during Wimbledon. As the female players are spending less time on court (for the most part), and their matches are less physically taxing, they have the option of participating in the doubles event and thus can generate even more revenue than the men. The Williams sisters are a perfect example of the aforementioned point.

It is an excellent point brought up by Murray and a very intelligent way of generating debate about equal prize money without sparking negative debate about women's rights.

[latso]

Originally Posted by Hewitt =Legend

I'm all for equality in tennis but Murray brought up an excellent point during Wimbledon. As the female players are spending less time on court (for the most part), and their matches are less physically taxing, they have the option of participating in the doubles event and thus can generate even more revenue than the men. The Williams sisters are a perfect example of the aforementioned point.

It is an excellent point brought up by Murray and a very intelligent way of generating debate about equal prize money without sparking negative debate about women's rights.

Not a valid point imo.

Girls play 3 setters coz that's their maximum. Guys are stronger and they can play 5 setters.

Both genders have players doing singles and doubles at the same time.

You can't give different prizes to the Olympic gold medalist male at 100m and less to the Olympic gold medalist female at 100m.

Yes, she is slower, but it took her the same amount of work and sacrifice to be the best in her gender. She attracts as many spectators as the guys, so why less money for the ladies?

[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by latso

Not a valid point imo.

Girls play 3 setters coz that's their maximum. Guys are stronger and they can play 5 setters.

Both genders have players doing singles and doubles at the same time.

You can't give different prizes to the Olympic gold medalist male at 100m and less to the Olympic gold medalist female at 100m.

Yes, she is slower, but it took her the same amount of work and sacrifice to be the best in her gender. She attracts as many spectators as th m, so why less money for the ladies?

That's a bad analogy as both athletes run 100. Currently men play best of 5, while women play best of 3. They are not putting in the same effort.

To use your analogy, would girls deserve same prize money if instead of 100m, they ran 80?

[guyha4]

I think that in the womens event the final should be best of 5 as a start ..
its impossible that a woman who wins a slam with maximum 21 sets and men with minimum 21 sets and the same prize money

[Slice Winner]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

That's a bad analogy as both athletes run 100. Currently men play best of 5, while women play best of 3. They are not putting in the same effort.

To use your analogy, would girls deserve same prize money if instead of 100m, they ran 80?

It would be 100m versus 60m, if it's the same 5:3 ratio you want.

[Looner]

I don't think you can use the spring as a comparison but you can definitely do it with 5000m. Both men and women run the same distance. Women do NOT run 3000m.

Originally Posted by Sham Kay

118 pages of bull. Now comparing this with an average life example:

There's a Mcdonalds down the road. The employees there serve an average of say 5 people per minute. They earn £7.60 per hour.

There's a Burger King across the street from the Mcdonalds. The employees there serve an average of about 3 people per hour. They earn £7.60 per hour.

Now if Mcdonalds were the ATP and Burger King were WTA, which Tennis organisation sells the cheapest double cheeseburgers? Wait.. no, there was a point in there somewhere.

This is a fine example of BS and lack of reasoning as well as that other post about 3 countries being the important places (typical of some Americans' reasoning, of course).