Mens Tennis Forums banner
61 - 79 of 79 Posts

·
Blown Out On the Trail
Joined
·
62,738 Posts
uNIVERSE mAN said:
I've always thought there should be two Slams one for the men and one for the women, like they do in every single other sport, this co-ed crap has got to stop, the men's tour is half financing the women.
I understand what you are saying, but having coedit is a marketing tool as well. If I have an opportunity to choose between going to a tournament that has men and women or one that has just men, I'll choose the tournament that has both sexes because although I enjoy the men's tennis more, it gives me the opportunity to see the women too.

I've seen some very exciting women's matches and they are some of my best memories of tennis. Even though I recognize the quality of the tennis wasn't as good as the men's, the matches were filled with drama and tension that entertained the whole crowd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Equal price money??? What a tragedy. I mean, this is truly horrible. I wonder how I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Because, yes, how much money women will make at the French Open is really supposed to affect deeply our life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,528 Posts
Rosie, I was wrong to state that all people against equal prize money were "physically unattractive, bitter men". Now I see that it's just physically unattractive, bitter people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,433 Posts
LoveFifteen said:
Rosie, I was wrong to state that all people against equal prize money were "physically unattractive, bitter men". Now I see that it's just physically unattractive, bitter people.
Congratulations on winning the most enlightening post of the day :rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,465 Posts
LoveFifteen said:
Rosie, I was wrong to state that all people against equal prize money were "physically unattractive, bitter men". Now I see that it's just physically unattractive, bitter people.
:lol:

BTW, the women's final at Wimbledon was more-bang-for-your-buck than the men's final. I'd say the girls would've deserved more money this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #67 ·
tangerine_dream said:
:lol:

BTW, the women's final at Wimbledon was more-bang-for-your-buck than the men's final. I'd say the girls would've deserved more money this year.
:bowdown:
 

·
Occasional Visitor
Joined
·
52,208 Posts
LoveFifteen said:
Rosie, I was wrong to state that all people against equal prize money were "physically unattractive, bitter men". Now I see that it's just physically unattractive, bitter people.
Why thanks so much for your deeply insightful comments about the physical appearances and mental attributes of people here you have never met :rolleyes: I thought this thread was to discuss our views about equal pay for women in tennis - not to throw personal insults at strangers :rolleyes: I personally haven't got time to waste on such silliness - thank you and goodnight :wavey:
 

·
Gugaholic
Joined
·
84,778 Posts
"Women didn't spend as much time on court as men, thus shouldn't be paid the same amount of prize money."

Wow!!! I don't know tennis players are paid by the hour? And why the guy who won took more money than the loser, who spent as much time on court as well.

How about the time they spent in gym, practice courts, promotion, interview, etc. Does it count?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70,026 Posts
LoveFifteen said:
Andre won more than 500,000 at the US Open because he was 2nd place in the US Open series. I think he won around 825,000.

Why the hell do some of you guys even care about prize money?! I mean, seriously, why the f-ck do you care? Does it affect you in any way whatsoever? Does it? This year at Roland Garros, Justine took home 867,000 Euro this year and Rafael Nadal took home 880,000. If Justine had gotten that extra 13,000 Euro, would your lives have fallen apart?

Physically unattractive straight men are so pathetic ... always so mysoginistic and bitter.
*Great* post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
I do hope you didn't agree with him solely by virtue of his last sentence.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,153 Posts
GWH's post puts it excellently. It's not about time spent on the court, it's about how much revenue the women bring in compared to the men. If women's tennis brings in as much money as men's tennis, yes, they fully deserve equal pay. You can make the argument that women's tennis is as popular as men's tennis, but let's face it - the average prize at most WTA events is less than that of ATP events. The amount of revenue from sponsors and advertisements is less. Sadly, this is a business, and until there are some tangible figures that prove that the women are as big a draw as the men, equal prize money shouldn't be in the cards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
This is a tough dilemma.

Seems to me, if you’re going to come up with a compensation package for the players at any Grand Slam it would have to be based on the merits of their respective segment because the reality is you’re dealing with two different sports. One based on five sets the other on three.

That said, the easy argument that men play more so they should be paid more, quickly gets tossed out the window for the simple reason that women’s matches can and have lasted longer than men’s. So the questions you’re left with revolve around the quality of competition.

Ø Are the matches between the women as good as the men? (However you want to define good… skill, drama, intrigue, etc.).
Ø Do they draw an equal crowd / viewership / sponsorship

I don’t know about the French or the AO and Wimbledon for that matter of fact. But the women definitely deserve equal pay at the US Open based on the mere fact that their final is in a prime time slot. It wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t interesting. And by being on in the late evening I would think it’s generating much higher advertising dollars as well as greater exposure for the US Open tournament and the sport in general. Thus the women deserve their cut.

So using the same logic, maybe representatives for the female players have been able to prove (with hard numbers) that the Ladies Final does indeed generate just as much interest as the men, hence the women are deserving of equal pay for this particular match.
 

·
Forum Umpire:, Gaston Gaudio,
Joined
·
124,503 Posts
Mechlan said:
GWH's post puts it excellently. It's not about time spent on the court, it's about how much revenue the women bring in compared to the men. If women's tennis brings in as much money as men's tennis, yes, they fully deserve equal pay. You can make the argument that women's tennis is as popular as men's tennis, but let's face it - the average prize at most WTA events is less than that of ATP events. The amount of revenue from sponsors and advertisements is less. Sadly, this is a business, and until there are some tangible figures that prove that the women are as big a draw as the men, equal prize money shouldn't be in the cards.
Thanks for that and someone gets it and it's just a PC decision. If they bring in equal revenue which is highly doubtful for all the reasons that I have stated, then equal prizemoney wouldn't be a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,274 Posts
Rosie said:
As a matter of interest, why do you assume that everyone who is against equal prize money is an "unattractive straight man" - who is "pathetic.........mysoginistic and bitter"? I am a straight woman (whether I am attractive or not is not for me to say!), - and I don't agree with it at all. I am not going to go into all my arguments - they've been said before in other threads on this subject, and GWH put them very well in his long post on the first page of this thread - but it's a vast generalisation to say that all the people who dislike WTA or don't agree with equal prize money are from one particular section of society. Yes - I am a feminist to a certain extent, yes I studied hard to gain my degree and expect to be paid equal money to the men who are doing the same job as myself .....but if those men had to spend twice as long in our office then I would expect them to be paid more than me for the extra hours they have put in.
Its not always the case though that mens matches are longer than womens, and thats besides the point, because the main work in tennis is the training and preparation that goes into it. Men and women both work and train as hard as each other in order to be ready for the tournament, and so they should be paid equally for it.

And yes I agree that there are people who use womens matches as an excuse to go get lunch or whatever, but I know as many people who only watch womens tennis and use the mens matches to do something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,958 Posts
GeorgeWHitler said:
Thanks for that and someone gets it and it's just a PC decision. If they bring in equal revenue which is highly doubtful for all the reasons that I have stated, then equal prizemoney wouldn't be a problem.
Of course it's a PC decision. But sometimes this kind of decisions are needed.
As i said, it was decision where they didn't take to much of an engagement and tried to please everybody to stop hearing complains etc...and still show a sign they realized women's tennis has progressed.
I think they tried to make the right decision to encourage women's tennis to get better and show them they noticed its recent progress and still noticing them they still work less hard than the men and have to keep progressing in terms of level at the same time. They tried to make everybody happy, to be balanced. It's not the end of the world if the winner is paid 13 000 euros more.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,465 Posts
Mechlan said:
Sadly, this is a business, and until there are some tangible figures that prove that the women are as big a draw as the men, equal prize money shouldn't be in the cards.
Net Improvement?
The strange evolution of women's tennis

By June Thomas
Aug. 27, 2001

In 1973, New York Times reporter Grace Lichtenstein wrote A Long Way Baby, tennis's first "season on the tour" chronicle. The highlight of the book—and of the season—was Billie Jean King's "Battle of the Sexes" with Bobby Riggs—a carnival-like match between a 29-year-old star and a 55-year-old clown that brought more attention to the women's game than years of political agitation and athletic achievement. In many ways, Lichtenstein was ahead of her time: She served up some eye-popping behind-the-scenes scandal—drugs, sex, gluttony—but because women's tennis was still an athletic backwater, no one paid much attention.

Fast-forward 27 years to the 2000 season chronicled by Sports Illustrated's L. Jon Wertheim in his new book Venus Envy. Women's tennis, by far the most lucrative women's professional sport, now enjoys record attendance levels and TV audiences that compare favorably with the NHL's. Polls show that more than 75 percent of tennis fans favor the women's game over the men's. In other words, the market is ripe for a juicy tennis tell-all. But while the game has become more popular, it has also become—horror of horrors for the thrill-seeking reader—squeaky clean.

rest of article here:
http://well-traveled.com/id/114267
 
61 - 79 of 79 Posts
Top