Novak Djokovic saying women tennis players should receive less prize money than men

(168 Posts)
sportinguista Mon 21-Mar-16 12:30:54

Because they have less spectators apparently. Is it me or does this just devalue women's sport?

MorrisZapp Mon 21-Mar-16 12:33:19

I'm not sure. Equal work should mean equal pay but that doesn't apply to sports does it. Footballers have individual contracts based on their value to the team.

Not sure if prize money comes under equal pay legislation or not.

SpeakNoWords Mon 21-Mar-16 12:50:58

this is worth a read:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2596852-Equality-vs-merit-vs-markets

warham Mon 21-Mar-16 12:51:35

Men's and women's tennis isn't an equal sport. They play different length games for a start.

absolutelynotfabulous Mon 21-Mar-16 12:55:07

I don't know exactly what Djokovic said, but I agree, I think. Women's tennis is less watched, and the matches are shorter. It's not "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value" imho.

SpeakNoWords Mon 21-Mar-16 12:55:24

Because that's what the tournament organisers want. Many women have suggested equal length matches.

Plus men only play 5 sets at a handful of the larger tournaments. For the recent Indian Wells, Djokovic won his final 6-2, 6-0. Serena Williams won hers 6-4, 6-4. Where is the disparity there?

sportinguista Mon 21-Mar-16 12:57:54

It's never going to be a level playing field but I assume Serena Williams and others train just as hard and have to put around the same effort into getting to the top as the male players. I just feel that women in sport are always seen as lesser beings as less worthy of being watched etc.

I've heard many men say that women's sport is less 'exciting' to watch. I guess this means women can never 'come up to' whatever standard simply because they are women.

absolutelynotfabulous Mon 21-Mar-16 12:59:14

If the matches are guaranteed to be of equal maximum length, fair enough. Award equal prize money in those cases. But in Wimbledon, say, where a men's match can be up to five sets, and women's up to three, then no.

SpeakNoWords Mon 21-Mar-16 13:00:24

I think that if you don't value womens sport as a good thing in itself, then you will be able to criticise in this way. There's no threat to mens sport here, they have the best of everything anyway. Djokovic is whinging about how he perceives women to be worth the same as him, and he doesn't like it. Wonder why.

GreatBritishBakeOff Mon 21-Mar-16 13:48:09

I guess he doesn't earn enough money already...
I especially liked the suggestion of the India Wells CEO that "If I was a lady player, I would go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport. They really have."

Because what women don't do enough of is bowing down to men.
Fucks sake.

treaclesoda Mon 21-Mar-16 13:54:16

I think I see the logic he is using, and I can, to a certain extent, see what he means.

But by blindly saying 'men generate more income, so we should get a bigger share of it' there will never be an opportunity for women's sport to progress, because it will be self fulfilling. Men's sport has more people watching it because the media has told us that it is where the real skill lies, that it is the pinnacle of achievement, and that is why the earn more. If more people showed an interest in watching women's sports, then women's sports would generate more. But also, if women's sports paid more, then people would see them as more valuable, and more people would want to watch it. It would probably be easier to change the culture by paying women more, than change the culture by saying to women 'you can have a pay rise when more people come to watch you'.

MrNoseybonk Mon 21-Mar-16 14:00:13

It would probably be easier to change the culture by paying women more, than change the culture by saying to women 'you can have a pay rise when more people come to watch you'.

Where would the money come from?
I mean, if people or sponsors aren't paying, then how can they be paid more?

SpeakNoWords Mon 21-Mar-16 14:05:41

Where is it coming from for the tennis tournaments where women are paid the same? Or for the Diamond league Athletics where the competitors are paid the same across events/gender?

vesuvia Mon 21-Mar-16 14:11:40

I notice that the Indian Wells tournament's CEO did not include Djokovic in his list of men who have "carried this sport".

msrisotto Mon 21-Mar-16 14:12:24

If it's about how long the matches are, I suppose Isner & Mahut should be paid more than everyone else after their 2010 game lasted 11 hours, 5 minutes over three days, for a total of 183 games and that was just the first round. So it's not really about equal work.

dimots Mon 21-Mar-16 14:14:56

The number of sets played is irrelevant. Does he think the men's prize money should be less if he wins in 3 sets rather than 5? Don't think so. Sportspeople are not paid by the hour. They are entertainers where the value is in the quality of the overall game. I have watched the Williams sisters play at wimbledon and can confirm they provide very high quality tennis that is extremely entertaining to watch. Do we pay less to watch a 90 min move than a 3 hour epic? No.

treaclesoda Mon 21-Mar-16 14:22:18

MrNoseybonk there are tournaments at present where women are paid the same, so I assume they take ticket sales, sponsorship etc and split it into a set prize fund. I don't know exactly how it is done.

In view of the recent decision by the Olympic committee regarding trans women competing in the ladies competitions, I'd be very interested to see what would happen to prize money if such a situation occurred in tennis...

MiniMover Mon 21-Mar-16 14:28:32

It's inherently sexist because as a woman, Serena Williams has no choice but to take part in the ladies tournaments. Even if she was allowed, her physicality would place her at a disadvantage. It's all very well saying it's not equal pay for equal work but that needs to be looked at carefully if someone is simply unable to access that 'higher' job.

Lweji Mon 21-Mar-16 14:31:59

I'd like to see the men's and women's games dates reversed to see which gets more spectators.
Why not have women's finals on the last day in alternate years?

Anyway, I think it's appalling that any man should go forward and ask that women are paid less for anything. Does he feel robbed? Or less as a man for receiving the same prize? Weird.

sportinguista Mon 21-Mar-16 14:50:54

Yes Lweji it is very odd. What difference would it make to him? It's not like they are going to pay the men even more are they?

Just felt that how is women's sport going to be seen as equal if they give very little chance for it to even have a shot. That doesn't just go for tennis, it's many sports. I think the only sport where men are behind women that I can think of is synchronised swimming.

It is inherently sexist if you have no chance to access the higher job at all.

MrNoseybonk Mon 21-Mar-16 15:00:14

MrNoseybonk there are tournaments at present where women are paid the same, so I assume they take ticket sales, sponsorship etc and split it into a set prize fund. I don't know exactly how it is done.

Yes, I suppose a tournament is easier as the funds can be pooled and shared out.
I had in mind something more like a small town's female football team. The players can be paid out of the gate receipts, but they can't be magically paid more unless more tickets are sold.

SpeakNoWords Mon 21-Mar-16 15:06:21

How much are a small town's men's football team paid? Aren't most small towns essentially amateur anyway?

And, if the club knew they had to pay all their players the same out of the club takings, maybe they might promote the women's games more. Now there's a thought.

JAPABImTheOneWhoKnocks Mon 21-Mar-16 15:08:59

Have to agree with those who say that in sports like this it comes entirely down to "draw". Women could play only one set, and men ten, but if it could be established that the women's side of the event was responsible for 90% of the ticket sales, advertising revenue, and whatever other money that comes in, then it would be quite right that the prize pot is split 90/10 in their favour. They caused 90% of it to exist after all.

Of course you could ask questions about why one side is more or less money-generating than another, and whether anything should be done about it. But even if the reasons why the women's sides generates less are "wrong", that does mean that money that morally belongs to other people (the ones who "earned" it) should be given to them as "the answer" IMO.

sleepwhenidie Mon 21-Mar-16 15:11:21

Listening to this being discussed on 5Live earlier, apparently the argument about men selling more tickets only applies when maybe 5 male players, the likes of Nadal, Federer, Jokovich are to play. Once you get beyond those and make a comparison across the board, apparently women's tennis is significantly more popular.

MrNoseybonk Mon 21-Mar-16 15:13:28

Not so small as to be amateur.
I mean real, proper teams.
My local male team pays £300k + per year as far as I can see.
To be honest I don't know whether a town's male teams and female teams are the same entity or not.
If they are, they could pool takings. If not, well, sadly they can't pay more.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now