[latso]

The guys are playing 5 sets only at slams (and DC, but they are free to skip DC if they want).

If we start comparing the "payability" of a match, then we should have a price list in boxing - 1st round KO - 10K, 3rd round - 50K, 10th round - 100K....in chess too - no mate until the 40th minute or no pay...

Hurdles are 110m for men, 100m for women. Both genders get the same prizes.

Tennis players play for 5 hours sometimes and most of them get a fraction of what the top 50 football players get. How unfair. Why is this? Coz of football being more popular? And what is popularity? The number of people watching it and buying the products of the sponsors? Looks like it...

WTA is at least as popular as ATP, so no debate here at all.

Ofc at MTF we watch ATP tennis almost exclusively, so we have no idea what is going on in the other side of the sport, just like Koenig, Simon, Tipsa, etc.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by latso

The guys are playing 5 sets only at slams (and DC, but they are free to skip DC if they want).

If we start comparing the "payability" of a match, then we should have a price list in boxing - 1st round KO - 10K, 3rd round - 50K, 10th round - 100K....in chess too - no mate until the 40th minute or no pay...

Hurdles are 110m for men, 100m for women. Both genders get the same prizes.

Tennis players play for 5 hours sometimes and most of them get a fraction of what the top 50 football players get. How unfair. Why is this? Coz of football being more popular? And what is popularity? The number of people watching it and buying the products of the sponsors? Looks like it...

WTA is at least as popular as ATP, so no debate here at all.

Ofc at MTF we watch ATP tennis almost exclusively, so we have no idea what is going on in the other side of the sport, just like Koenig, Simon, Tipsa, etc.

[Hewitt =Legend]

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 the guys, so why less money for the ladies?

You are right about the female players giving their maximum effort but it still doesn't change the fact that a higher abundance of their top players participate in the doubles event than the males. There has to be a reason for this and I believe it is because they are able to juggle the physical demands of both events far more easily than the men. As a result they have the opportunity to potentially earn more money.

I think it is an extremely valid point and one that is not mentioned enough in this ongoing debate.

[Wing Man Frank]

119 pages and we stop don't have a decent reason.

Keep going.

[Wing Man Frank]

Originally Posted by latso

If we start comparing the "payability" of a match, then we should have a price list in boxing - 1st round KO - 10K, 3rd round - 50K, 10th round - 100K....in chess too - no mate until the 40th minute or no pay...

Is this the best argument you can come up with? Really?

People turn up to a boxing match KNOWING it could be over in 30 seconds. Therein lies the massive difference.

Engage your brain and think.

[stebs]

Originally Posted by latso

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.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I genuinely don't know. However, since you clearly don't know either, I do think you're wrong to make that assumption. Federer and Nadal are huge global stars and the ATP is more popular overall than the WTA. The extent to which the 'home star' phenomenon counteracts that probably varies hugely country to country, culture to culture and sport to sport.

[arm]

Originally Posted by Hewitt =Legend

You are right about the female players giving their maximum effort but it still doesn't change the fact that a higher abundance of their top players participate in the doubles event than the males. There has to be a reason for this and I believe it is because they are able to juggle the physical demands of both events far more easily than the men. As a result they have the opportunity to potentially earn more money.

I think it is an extremely valid point and one that is not mentioned enough in this ongoing debate.

So hypothetically: in a scenario where women and men both play best of 5 in Grand Slams, less women would participate in the doubles event because they wouldn't be psychically capable of handling both events and the situation would be reversed. Should women get paid more, then? According to Murray's argument, they probably should, no? They would have less chances of making the extra money because they wouldn't be able to handle the fatigue of playing the two events so well.

This argument is problematic in many ways, Andrey. I don't agree that it's valid at all in this debate.

Also one thing I don't understand is whether the top players think women's prize money should be cut down or their own should be raised.

[Hewitt =Legend]

Originally Posted by arm

So hypothetically: in a scenario where women and men both play best of 5 in Grand Slams, less women would participate in the doubles event because they wouldn't be psychically capable of handling both events and the situation would be reversed. Should women get paid more, then? According to Murray's argument, they probably should, no? They would have less chances of making the extra money because they wouldn't be able to handle the fatigue of playing the two events so well.

This argument is problematic in many ways, Andrey. I don't agree that it's valid at all in this debate.

Also one thing I don't understand is whether the top players think women's prize money should be cut down or their own should be raised.

If females played best of five sets (which I don't think they should), then yes, I firmly believe they wouldn't be able to play both events to their full capacity. The situation wouldn't be reversed, it would just mean that they wouldn't play both events. The whole point of the argument is that the top female players play both events far more than the males and thus have the opportunity to generate more revenue. There is plenty of evidence to back this up as well.

I don't think this argument is the be all and end all of this ongoing equal prize money debate but I do feel it's a more intelligent way to look at things then merely pointing out that the ATP is more popular, generates more revenue, is more physically taxing etc...

For the record, I do believe that women should get equal prize money but we could seriously discuss this for years with people who disagree and wouldn't get anywhere.

Ajde.

[August]

Does anybody know any joint sports events where men and women have different prize moneys? I think golf's men's major winners get bigger prize money than women's major winners, but men's and women's majors are separate events.

That men play with Bo5 format and women with Bo3 isn't itself an issua for me, for example cross-country skiing's major championship races are (men/women):

15/10 km
30/15 km
50/30 km
4*10/4*5 km relay

And in Olympic swimming, the longest distance for men is 1500m, for women it's 800m.

But another thing is that Bo3 enables women to play doubles also. But even if men played with Bo3 (I really don't want that to happen.), top femaly players would probably still get more money in slams, men's doubles level is higher, i.e. it's more difficult to get to final rounds of men's slam doubles than women's. And that applies to singles too.

[MuzzahLovah]

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.

Where did he say this?

[Pirata.]

Originally Posted by Hewitt =Legend

You are right about the female players giving their maximum effort but it still doesn't change the fact that a higher abundance of their top players participate in the doubles event than the males. There has to be a reason for this and I believe it is because they are able to juggle the physical demands of both events far more easily than the men. As a result they have the opportunity to potentially earn more money.

There really isn't much money in doubles. I haven't checked for this year, but I know in 2010, the prize money for a doubles team that won the tournament without losing in RR was less than the amount a singles player got for playing one round robin match. And the doubles players have to share.

[August]

Originally Posted by Pirata.

There really isn't much money in doubles. I haven't checked for this year, but I know in 2010, the prize money for a doubles team that won the tournament without losing in RR was less than the amount a singles player got for playing one round robin match. And the doubles players have to share.

Doubles slam champions' prize money shared by two pretty much equals to singles QF prize money.

AO
RG
Wimby
USO

[dencod16]

A women's 3 setter goes at least more than 2 1/2 hours. Men;s matches in 3 sets goes at the most 2 hours of course if Nadal and Djoko are playing it will go to 3 hours the other hour is time between points. I don't think number of sets = effort. And has Federer said before the 5 setter protects the top players more than anything, if it was 3 setters they would lose their stars in early rounds like WTA does, 3 setters are more upset prone than 5 setters, thus less money.

[latso]

More women play both doubles and singles because a good WTA doubles player would most of the time be a very competitive single player, which isn't the case in the men circuit.

If the Bryans, Lindsted, Tecau, Zimonic, etc. would be competitive enough in singles, they would be playing both (like Kubot f.e.) and it would be the same for both genders.

About the "boxing case" "smart" reply - do you think spectators going to watch WTA matches expect more than what they get?
So what is your (stupid and aggressive) post about exactly?

@Stebs -

Federer and Nadal are huge global stars and the ATP is more popular overall than the WTA

- that's the main point - IMO it isn't and you couldn't know, just as i couldn't be sure.

As elaborated earlier, i will go again to clarify my point - tennis fans, who know and like tennis are maximum 2%-5% of the world.
Even if we assume that they all are fans of ATP only, it is still up to 300mil.

A Li Na - Serena Williams final in any GS could make 200mil in China only. That's 15% of the population. I can't be sure, true, but most of you guys don't know what means the pride of the sports achievements in the communist countries. I know, i'm old enough to remember.

Anyways, we're just speculating and the main argument for most is - ATP is more popular. Yes, for MTF users...

[latso]

And i'm not sure that Nadal is more popular than Sharapova in Russia, or Serena Williams in the States.

So the debate about what is more popular is far from being very clear.

A fact - WTA players get the same cash for less sets

You think there are idiots who would give more money than necessary just for the women emancipation? Yeah, right..