Mens Tennis Forums banner
21 - 40 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Like I said no one cares about Medvedev. If you worldwide numbers Raducanu destroys them in ratings.

According to anti-equal pay trolls, Emma deserved a higher prize money than medvedev for all the numbers she generated but no, the sexists will mention ratings when a man gets higher ones. Yeah, fuck off.
Prize money is not determined by a particular match. Compare the overall spectator attendance / sponsor interest in WTA and ATP, you will get your answer about equal pay.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Prize money is not determined by a particular match. Compare the overall spectator attendance / sponsor interest in WTA and ATP, you will get your answer about equal pay.
Men already get a higher prize money in some seperate tour events due to more sponsor interest...... but this logic is impossible to apply in slams because you can’t say x deserves more pay than y because they attract higher crowds. According to your logic, Some atp scrub who absolutely no one gives a shit about deserves higher pay than Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka who generate way more revenue? Roger Federer should be paid more for his R1 win than some qualifier because he attracts more spectators? And if you wanna count sponsorship interest than Medvedev doesn’t generate shit in comparison to some of the wta and atp stars both...
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
16,292 Posts
When will people learn t


Nothing Chroma says should be taken seriously
I mean, that should be pretty obvious about now, especially after this Bouchard thing.

Chroma is obviously a bitter Djoko fan that is deflecting the country thing away from Nole and onto unsuspecting Russian Bear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Djokovic should give half his prize money to the women. According to some posters here, equal prize money at slams is horrible, horrible horribly sexist towards men.
Well, Djokovic played like shit, only 3 sets and cried like a woman. They got more viewership too. Only fair to give his prize money to the women now. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
According to your logic, Some atp scrub who absolutely no one gives a shit about deserves higher pay than Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka who generate way more revenue? Roger Federer should be paid more for his R1 win than some qualifier because he attracts more spectators? And if you wanna count sponsorship interest than Medvedev doesn’t generate shit in comparison to some of the wta and atp stars both...
We are talking about PRIZE MONEY, right? Prize money is distributed according to a pre-fixed schedule no matter whether it is Federer or a scrub. Federer will get his differentiating recognition in sponsorship deals and inviation money.
Men's and women's draws at majors are DIFFERENT competitions. And should get the pool of prize money proportionately to the interest they generate. The argument that both draws should have necessarily equal pool is a bogus one. Why? Why do you not fight for doubles draws having the same prize money as singles? Or wheelchair? Or juniors? It is the same tournament after all, isn't it?

Men already get a higher prize money in some seperate tour events due to more sponsor interest...... but this logic is impossible to apply in slams because you can’t say x deserves more pay than y because they attract higher crowds.
So you want to imply that men attract more viewer and sponsor interest than women when playing in separate event, but when they compete together in a major this somehow changes, for whatever strange reason...? Nice try

In fact, I am FOR equal pay. But for completely different reason than "equality" or "fairness". Tennis being (almost) the only major sport where women's prize earnings are comparable to men's makes it rather unique and attracts more than its fair share of girls into the game and female spectators to the stands (both for ATP and WTA), than it otherwise would be. Hence, the overall pie to share is larger. Still, this doesn't change the fact, that equal pay arrangement at majors is a shere subsidy by men's side (which generates more money inflow) to women.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
We are talking about PRIZE MONEY, right? Prize money is distributed according to a pre-fixed schedule no matter whether it is Federer or a scrub. Federer will get his differentiating recognition in sponsorship deals and inviation money.
Men's and women's draws at majors are DIFFERENT competitions. And should get the pool of prize money proportionately to the interest they generate. The argument that both draws should have necessarily equal pool is a bogus one. Why? Why do you not fight for doubles draws having the same prize money as singles? Or wheelchair? Or juniors? It is the same tournament after all, isn't it?
Your argument is based on men bringing in more sponsors during slams. Men do better at tour events because they have more hardcore fans while wta has more casual ones......

If you wanna apply this then Medvedev absolutely does not deserve equal prize money since Raducanu and the girls were the ones attracting the revenue this tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Your argument is based on men bringing in more sponsors during slams. Men do better at tour events because they have more hardcore fans while wta has more casual ones......

If you wanna apply this then Medvedev absolutely does not deserve equal prize money since Raducanu and the girls were the ones attracting the revenue this tournament.
You are talking about a particular ONE match.

If this pattern repeats itself in many other matches and in many tournaments, I am sure sponsors will take note and will start to pay women more than men. However, we both know this will not happen. Men's sports are generally more interesting than women's, no matter that you enjoyed Raducanu more than Medvedev this time...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
You are talking about a particular ONE match.

If this pattern repeats itself in many other matches and in many tournaments, I am sure sponsors will take note and will start to pay women more than men. However, we both know this will not happen. Men's sports are generally more interesting than women's, no matter that you enjoyed Raducanu more than Medvedev this time...
Oh please, Raducanu's semifinals and the matches she played before also had higher viewers and generated more clicks than Medvedev did. Why the fuck should she receive less money just because she is a woman when Medvedev is the one people don't find interesting? If you want to pay them based on how interesting they are then the women who outshined the atp this tournament should have earned more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Oh please, Raducanu's semifinals and the matches she played before also had higher viewers and generated more clicks than Medvedev did. Why the fuck should she receive less money just because she is a woman when Medvedev is the one people don't find interesting? If you want to pay them based on how interesting they are then the women who outshined the atp this tournament should have earned more.
Again - please pay attention. PRIZE money is not allocated based on clicks or viewers of one or two or three particular matches. PRIZE MONEY is scheduled in advance of the event.

Once there are consistently as many spectators in WTA stands at separate events as they are at ATP ones, plaese wake me up - I will be ready to hear your arguments that women's game now generates equal interest and financial inflows as men do and that the payout should be distributed accordingly. Until then, enjoy the subsidies at majors. As I said earlier, I consider those those unfair, but beneficial not only to women, but to men as well. Through larger interest to this sport in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Again - please pay attention. PRIZE money is not allocated based on clicks or viewers of one or two or three particular matches. PRIZE MONEY is scheduled in advance of the event.

Once there are consistently as many spectators in WTA stands at separate events as they are at ATP ones, plaese wake me up - I will be ready to hear your arguments that women's game now generate equal interest and financial inflows as men do and that the payout should be distributed accordingly. Until then, enjoy the subsidies at majors. As I said earlier, I consider those those are unfair, but beneficial not only to women, but to men as well. Through larger interest to this sport in general.
How would they know if the men's or the women's tournament would be the one to bring in the most revenue?? Double's matches can almost never match up to singles so they are paid less but it's different with the slams hence the equal pay.

Again you haven't answered my question. Why should a Naomi Osaka receive less money than a background player like medvedev based on the sole reason that she is a woman??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,405 Posts
He wins in a tennis match( pointlessly hitting yellow balls for fun) but she wins in LIFE. Earned more money through sponsors, is more well known,much better looking and can bag basically any man she wants. Hence i said being a Bouchard is better than being a weirdo no one cares about....
Wrong

10. Eugenie Bouchard (forbes.com)
10. Eugenie Bouchard

Total Earnings: $6.2 million
Prize money: $0.7 million
Endorsements: $5.5 million

Bouchard appeared to be tennis' new "It" girl after her run to the 2014 Wimbledon finals. She landed new deals with Nike, Usana and Rolex that kicked off last year. But injuries and uneven play have plagued the Canadian and her rank has fallen to No. 47.
--

Eugenie Bouchard 2021 - Net Worth, Salary and Endorsements (essentiallysports.com)
Eugenie Bouchard’s Endorsements

During the 2014 season, the Canadian had a multitude of sponsors chasing after her. But once it was clear that she was just a one-season wonder, the majority of them began to jump ship. Even her agent, John Tobias, left her in March 2018.

Her biggest sponsors, Coca-Cola, Aviva, and Usana, chose to not renew their contracts with her. In 2018, she signed a new racquet sponsor in Yonex.

Despite her poor performances, Nike stuck by her before dropping her in March 2020. Later, Bouchard sported a New Balance costume during the Australian Open 2021 qualifiers. And later it was confirmed that Bouchard had signed a new clothing deal with New Balance.
--




It seems people do care about the weirdo, including his wife.

--

Not that neither is doing particularly poorly compared to Joes of the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
How would they know if the men's or the women's tournament would be the one to bring in the most revenue?? Double's matches can almost never match up to singles so they are paid less but it's different with the slams hence the equal pay.
They cannot know with absolute certainty, in advance of the event. But they can estimate the probabilities from many-decades-long experience. And thoughout those decades, men's side generated more interest and inflows.
Again, if things change, and women start to CONSISTENTLY attract more interest than men, they will be paid more than men. Sponsors are not idiots, they know their business.

Again you haven't answered my question. Why should a Naomi Osaka receive less money than a background player like medvedev based on the sole reason that she is a woman??
Because she takes part in the draw that is less interesting to watch. Well, maybe it is YOUR opinion that it is more intereting to watch Osaka than Medvedev, fair enough. However, in MOST years, MORE viewers believe men's competition is more attractive. Sorry ...

P.S. As a disclaimer, despite my country flag, I very much dislike Medvedev as a person. But I definitely would prefer to watch his match than Osaka's, if I had to choose. Becasue Osaka's game is boring to me, while Medvedev's is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
No. You clearly need work on your English comprehension skills. I didn't say Bouchard is necessarily better than Medvedev.

I said a Bouchard (A famous and good looking socialite decently rich) is better than a Medvedev (Scrawny, balding, and nerdy looking guy who is largely ignored despite being more talented)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,405 Posts
No. You clearly need work on your English comprehension skills. I didn't say Bouchard is necessarily better than Medvedev.

I said a Bouchard (A famous and good looking socialite decently rich) is better than a Medvedev (Scrawny, balding, and nerdy looking guy who is largely ignored despite being more talented)
You claimed she earned more and that no one cared for him
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,405 Posts
They cannot know with absolute certainty, in advance of the event. But they can estimate the probabilities from many-decades-long experience. And thoughout those decades, men's side generated more interest and inflows.
Again, if things change, and women start to CONSISTENTLY attract more interest than men, they will be paid more than men. Sponsors are not idiots, they know their business. [...]
Women's pro sports is still the rise:


 
21 - 40 of 68 Posts
Top