[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by uxyzapenje

How is it not the same? Are you kidding me? You work for a reward. If you have better results, you should get a bigger reward. That's the only fair thing to do. If not, tell me why isn't R1 loser getting the same money as the winner of a Slam? I'll tel you why, because results are rewarded, not effort. He exactly cares if Albert Ramos trains twice as much as Fed or Novak, nobody will give him the money for his efforts.
RESULTS, Slasher, RESULTS! You train to achieve results, effort isn't it's own goal, it never is in life. Nobody has an ambition to be 'the hardest working guy on tour' but everybody has an ambition to be the most successful.

Why aren't you getting this. Results are rewarded. You must get the same prize for the same result. You're basing your argument on a fail. That a women's R2 is worse than a men's R2. Which is wrong. It's like having two papers that are graded 98 and 78, although they deliver the same result, even though one of them is less elegant than the other. They both achieve the same result, so why would one get 78??? If a student takes a long path to solve an equation and another a shorter path, both students achieving the same result, they must get different grades, correct? That's your logic...

[uxyzapenje]

Originally Posted by Slasher1985

Let me take this another way.

Say you own a huge enterprise that produces sport shoes. After a few years a rival opens up a second factory that produces leisure shoes. The sport shoes are a success, but you're putting in a lot of money on the line, so the profit is getting smaller and smaller due to increased salaries and overtime working.

The leisure shoes sales are dwindling. Your rivals are basically idiots and think that they don't need to do anything. Their shoes will never be as good as the sport, so they decide to sit out and pay their employees much less, keeping the performance below average. What would be the option here? Increase the salaries of your employees, but keep the work time in check, in order to motivate your employees and encourage development and performance is the smart economist choice.

If players receive more money, they are encouraged to perform better in order to defeat the fail top players of WTA and take women's tennis to a whole new level.

Yes, and tell you employees 'Never mind that you achieve worse results, I'll just give you more money because you are less talented and aren't capable of making better shoes'. How is 'You don't need to work harder and produce better results, I'll just give you the money that the workers with better results form the other company are making, without the results' exactly motivating anyone to work harder?

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by uxyzapenje

Yes, and tell you employees 'Never mind that you achieve worse results, I'll just give you more money because you are less talented and aren't capable of making better shoes'. How is 'You don't need to work harder and produce better results, I'll just give you the money that the workers with better results form the other company are making, without the results' exactly motivating anyone to work harder?

How about 'I believe in you. This is my investment into the future. I know you can take this to a whole new level.'

[afterglows]

Originally Posted by GOAT = Fed

Cannot believe you dismissed that argument like this. Virtually every job in the world you are paid on an hour-by-hour basis. What makes tennis, specifically, women's tennis exempt from this basic business principle?

Are you serious with that? A tennis player really can't be compare to a guy who works at a factory. Tennis is a spectacle nowadays. Do you really think that people in the entertainment business are paid on an hour-by-hour basis? Do you think that an actor who plays in a 3 hours movie will necessarily get paid more than an actor who plays in a 1h30 movie? Is a musician get paid more for a longer gig?

And as far as as know men players are paid the same if they play 3 or 5 sets.

The "they play more" argument doesn't really seem relevant to me.

[Looner]

Let's just say summarise this discussion and say women in tennis are overpaid .

[uxyzapenje]

Originally Posted by Slasher1985

How about 'I believe in you. This is my investment into the future. I know you can take this to a whole new level.'

And how about 'I don't care that you suck at your job, I'll just give you the money.'

Look Slasher, if we look at ATP and the WTA as separate tours, they can give them all the money in the world. But the problem is that WTA players aren't just asking for 'more money'. They are asking for 'the same amount of money ATP players get'. Using your example with companies and stuff, I would have to talk about syndicates and people from the same line of work from different companies but members of the syndicate asking for fair and equal wages and then you have company owners and their interest and so on and so on. I really don't have the time to go that deep.

If you wanna talk that way, sure, 1 owner can pay their workers as much as they want for worse results and the other can pay less for better results, they both choose what's best for their companies. But we are talking about fairness here. Without going deeper and explain myself why I think giving them the same money for worse results isn't motivating them and why they won't 'take it to the next level' (it's pretty obvious, tho, but I'm not going to discuss it further in case you have counter arguments), my mere point is that it's not fair for someone to be payed more for worse results. This is not economics that I'm discussing here, it's fairness. If you wanna talk economics, we will talk another time, I really don't have the time for that right now, and tbh, it's boring, I come here for fun...

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by Looner

Let's just say summarise this discussion and say women in tennis are overpaid .

The majority in this topic has voted for that anyway. Was just trying to bring more "stamina" into the thread. It's MTFs POV.

afterglows, with that actor thing, you remind me that George Clooney is a very well paid actor, who, for most of us mortals, delivers very high quality movies, which are most of always awarded. I can't stand the guy at all. That is how subjective this "don't pay women more because their tennis sucks compared with men" really is.

GOAT = Fed, uxyzapenje, let's agree to disagree here, and let's not drag this any further.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Looner

Let's just say summarise this discussion and say women in tennis are overpaid .

Yup. They get paid way more than circus performers basically for the same job

The standard of 'tennis' is horrendous: just bash, bash and bash harder, close your eyes and pray it lands in and whoever has more natural power wins by default more often than not. Add in relentless mental clowning/muggery and you have the WTA. Where's the incentive to improve the level of tennis if they get paid the same as men for playing like absolute mugs?

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by uxyzapenje

it's not fair for someone to be payed more for worse results

With this I will end this discussion.

It's not worse results. It's the same results. Winning a Grand Slam. The solution differs though. I'm a programmer, and I know how solutions to problems may differ. In some cases it's annoying to have inelegant solutions because programs run slower, but almost every time, a working program is a working program, no matter how inelegant your code is. Now, what if my boss comes in and says. "See, I'm not going to pay you as the rest of your team, because your part of the code... it's shit. The program works, but... I don't like it how you use "ifs" all the time."

[uxyzapenje]

Originally Posted by Slasher1985

With this I will end this discussion.

It's not worse results. It's the same results. Winning a Grand Slam. The solution differs though. I'm a programmer, and I know how solutions to problems may differ. In some cases it's annoying to have inelegant solutions because programs run slower, but almost every time, a working program is a working program, no matter how inelegant your code is. Now, what if my boss comes in and says. "See, I'm not going to pay you as the rest of your team, because your part of the code... it's shit. The program works, but... I don't like it how you use "ifs" all the time."

Come on Slasher, you are better than this.


The goal in programming is to make a working and as much as possible fast-running program. If it does it's job, it's a good program.

The goal in tennis isn't to 'win Slams'. You can put 128 random MTF posters play a Slam and 1 is due to win it. So you are telling me that's the same, we still got our Slam winner.
It's like have a team of programmers that can't even write if a>b then a:=b, and you know how to use for a:= from 1 to b do c:=c+a. Hence, you are the best programmer in your team, you can win your company's 'programmer's Grand Slam', but your team still sucks ass and you don't deserve to be payed as programmers in other companies. Again, deserve, your company owner can give you millions if he thinks that will somehow bring him wanted results.



Over and out, see you later peeps.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

Yup. They get paid way more than circus performers basically for the same job

The standard of 'tennis' is horrendous: just bash, bash and bash harder, close your eyes and pray it lands in and whoever has more natural power wins by default more often than not. Add in relentless mental clowning/muggery and you have the WTA. Where's the incentive to improve the level of tennis if they get paid the same as men for playing like absolute mugs?

Yup, I was pleasantly surprised at how competitive the women's final seemed to be (I saw the score ) but apart from that all QF and SFs were straight sets and NID except Serena getting injured . Even if ATP is not much better, men's tennis is actually in a bad place right now (IMHO) and it still is better. What does that say about the women bashers?

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by uxyzapenje

The goal in tennis isn't to 'win Slams'. You can put 128 random MTF posters play a Slam and 1 is due to win it. So you are telling me that's the same, we still got are Slam winner.

Some people believe it is. That's why I said this is subjective. In fact, this is how tennis started after all, back in 1877 when the first Slam was played by amateurs.

But as I said, I am saying nothing more.

I really like most MTFers and I don't like dragging arguments to the point where the atmosphere is threatened to become unfriendly.

[August]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

Yup. They get paid way more than circus performers basically for the same job

The standard of 'tennis' is horrendous: just bash, bash and bash harder, close your eyes and pray it lands in and whoever has more natural power wins by default more often than not. Add in relentless mental clowning/muggery and you have the WTA. Where's the incentive to improve the level of tennis if they get paid the same as men for playing like absolute mugs?

Well, no matter how hard they would train, best female players will always be worse than ATP Challenger players, or otherwise men's tennis is in crisis. So pure quality will never be the reason to follow WTA.

And actually I think that clowning is almost crucial for WTA. WTA is a different product to ATP, people watch it partly for different reasons. Diehard WTA fans seem to love all that clowning, muggery, etc, which on the other hand is a reason why I don't like WTA too much. And of course muggery isn't the only reason to watch WTA. The game of Federer, Llodra, etc. is definitely a rarer beauty than any WTA player but I rather watch Lisicki than Simon-Monfils.

So ATP & WTA are different products. And outside slams ATP and WTA players get money as much as their tours' revenues enable, i.e. more for men than women.

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by GOAT = Fed

Could mods sticky my response. I've pretty much single handedly dismantled nearly all of the pro equal pay arguments.

If you think so

As arrogant as your fave

[Topspindoctor]

I would like to see women play 5 setters from QF. That will surely expose zero fitness mugs plaguing the WTA tour right now. Then equal prize money is somewhat justified.