Women's tennis and equal pay

Is tennis a job?
Should they be paid per hour the same rate?
Are there 2 unrelated tournaments at Wimbledon? (I think the women's and men's tours are different organisations)

Tricky one. No answers from me, but I can see why some men think it a bit unfair, and why some women don't...

Sorry, Women's tennis still just isn't as entertaining as the men's.

It isn't about equal pay for equal work. A tennis player is more like an actor. Your getting paid for how many people watch your match, buy your sponsors products and the value of the ad brakes to the TV company.

There isn't the depth of good players or the consistency at the top of the women's came to make a blockbuster.

Yes, Navratilova or Steffi might have deserved equal pay. The Williams sisters perhaps.

The present women just don't cut it.
There are too many 6-0, 6-0 games. Women who are good one day and utterly crap the next.
Sorry, but a lot of women's tennis would go straight to video.

Yes, I think that sporting tournaments depend on having monetary value. If there wasn't any money to be made from them (either directly or indirectly) then I'm sure the great, great majority would no longer go ahead.

Of course they also have other benefits - encouraging sport in children, etc etc - but those benefits don't pay for the prize money. It's the monetary benefits that pay for the prize money, hence there is justification in less monetary benefit = lower prize money.

The Olympics don't have prize money AFAIK, just medals?

Wimbledon doesn't pay competitors, AFAIK.
They offer a prize. Same as all other tournaments and meets.

The Olympics don't pay competitors.

And sporting tournaments do have significant monetary value for professional players.

So at the Olympics for 100m sprint - where interest for the men's race is more than for the women's - the women should receive a lesser prize?

You think the value of sporting tournaments is monetary?

Sardine as I've said, I think the real rationale for lower prize money is lower interest in women's sport (and hence lower price for TV rights etc, so lower monetary value).

It's nothing to do with the quality of the sport per se.

Hence, this would not mean lower prizes for girls at school, because at school there is generally equal interest in girls' and boys' sport (because the interest is mainly from the parents!) plus the value of school sport is not monetary anyway in the way that tournaments like Wimbledon are.

Should girls get lesser prizes than boys at all levels of the game?

That would seem logical.

So you are arguing for the women's singles prize to be reduced?

Because women tennis players play less tennis than the men, they are usually able to play in the doubles tournament too, which means they get to win even more money.

On MN and I have just realised in the feminism section

People calling for prize for women at wimbledon to be reduced and describing women as inferior!

Surely the point of sporting contests is to win against the people you are competing against.

Then if you win you get a prize.

All this stuff about women are inferior and so on... So women should receive lesser prizes for winning in all physical tests throughout their lives? Take a secondary school level sports meet - the girls get certificates and the boys get trophies - something like that?

Always surprised to read stuff like this on a predominantly female site.

Prize money is equal at Wimbledon.

the mens tennis brings in more cash, true, but wimbleden is one event, if the organisres equalised the winnings it would send a very public message that the glass ceiling is being eroded, starting here, not to mention sending the right message to schoolgirls considering sport actvities.
they could do it, they chose not to.

Humph. Cut the men's game down to 3 sets. Problem solved.

All that the celebrated King-Riggs match proved was that time like an ever-rolling stream bears all its sons away. Daughters too, of course.

Hester, women beat men very frequently at local club level. Of course a top woman can beat a 55 year old man 24 years after his peak. I said "The best women have never been able to beat even the not-quite-best men in experiments. I remember Martina Navratilova at her peak could not." Perhaps I should have clarified that by 'not quite-best' I meant top 100ish ie other Wimbledon players.

Nemno, I think you'll find your mistaken about that.

espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016060.html

"I think men's and women's prize money should be equal."

minipie wrote - "On that basis the prize money for the Surrey under 16s tournament would be the same as the prize money for Wimbledon."

I'm surprised that you think my earlier comment implies that Surrey juniors and Wimbledon prize money would be the same.

Wimbledon women should be paid the same as Wimbledon men. Surrey girls should be paid the same as Surrey boys.

nemno I'm not sure exactly how they determine viewing figures but they are well known and much used in the TV industry. I think it may be by doing surveys and extrapolating from the answers.

I don't know if they sell Wimbledon womens rights separately from Wimbledon mens. Probably not, because no TV channel would be interested in just the womens...

On the other hand, the light weight categories are far more entertaining because they use speed and skill rather than just slugging it out.

Prize money is not allocated by hour or on a piece work basis. It doesn't matter how many sets are played- it is a prize for a competition!

"Boxers fight in weight categories to give the smaller, lighter guys a chance. Nobody suggests that to really prove themselves, a featherweight should go up against a heavyweight."

You bet though that the heavyweight fights get more money and interest. Ofcourse the lightweights are inferior. A lightweight can choose to enter into weight category above lightweight, but not vica a versa.