Women's tennis and equal pay

What women do at ultramarathons is a non-comparison; an ultramarathon is not a tennis match. Can you directly prove that increasing the duration of the matches to 7 sets will reduce the disparity in skill that often leads to dull one-sided results? That is the issue I and others have raised.

Porn? I've said nothing about female tennis players and porn, it seems you're projecting what you think occupies the thoughts of men. Your misandrist response is rather ironic, given your clumsy accusation of misogyny. 'Grunters' exist in both sexes, but if you can find me an equivalent shrill screamer to Victoria Azarenka, or God forbid, Sharapova, in the mens' games then I'll concede the point that it's a particularly annoying feature of the womens' game.

You seem here to have a fight, helxi.

It is v boring of you.

The point is that women often perform better when extreme stamina is involved. hence my suggestion of 7 sets.

Female tennis players have said that they would like to play 5 sets. They are not allowed to.

And as for your comments about women looking and sounding like they are in porn films, or giving birth. Pathetic. Shows what you think women should be doing, quite frankly. Women like to play sport and they are competitive and surprise when they put a lot of effort in they do not always remain silent. Same as the men. Shocking. Not very ladylike

"Helxi you need to check out ultramarathon."

That will prove women play better tennis (than men?) at 3+ sets how, exactly?

Helxi you need to check out ultramarathon.

How can we be having this debate in 2012?

Still, in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive and have to have pieces of paper from a man authorising them to rent property ...

Come on, this 'debate' is tired and sad and old and retrograde. The prizes are awarded for winning a competition where there are different categories. Men are physically more powerful. Great. So what? The women's game is interesting and watchable. I was gripped by the Serena game today, as was DS.

If you think this issue has nothing to do with gender equality, just reflect upon the fact that working women earn on average 90% that of men. In the UK, and despite the equal pay act. It's going to be another decade at least before we get to parity. But we are getting there. We are and it will happen. We don't need shit like this to set us back 30 years.

"... and the female players would be able to show their stuff over the long haul which as we know women are extremely good at."

Do 'we'? I doubt it.

Instead of 6-0, 6-1 results we might get 6-0,6-1, 6-0 instead, oh, and another set of screaming like someone's going into labour every time their racket touches the ball. Increasing the length of play isn't going to magically compensate for depth of talent, or the decibel count. Still, it's one way of resolving the debate - 'For crying out loud, let them keep the money, just give them their 3 sets back and let the men play 5 sets!'.

That would be very interesting - the men would be able to really go for it without holding back in case of a long haul, and the female players would be able to show their stuff over the long haul which as we know women are extremely good at.

Maybe they could draw a lot before the match starts to decide how many sets - 3, 5 or 7 and take it from there!

Really interesting idea.

If the number of sets played is regarded as irrelevant in relation to the size of the purse, then there should be no problem with the men playing 3 sets and the women playing 5.

There are actually a lot of people who would love to see women be more involved, and when girls are given the same opportunities as men, they can reach the same levels.

Also, they have to pay out for coaching, travel etc just as much as the men. They don't get a discount on any of the costs just because they're female. When they travel to tournaments, airlines and hotels don't have a cheaper rate for them. they have the same demands on them for training, sponsorship deals, travel etc.

I don't understand why women don't complain that about equality in tennis
I am in favour of equality
If women want equality with men in tennis why stop them
let women have equality
let them all play in a single event
same rules, same prize money one competition
please take the tennis authorities to court!

They should be docked money from their purse for all the ridiculous grunting and groaning it's like watching a porno or something. Not suitable for daytime tv at all Angry:

josephine a prize is a prize is a prize

Whether it is a certificate or a medal or money or a session with a top coach... A prize is a prize.

Why are male tennis players paid more than women?

Turn on your TV and watch the tie break going on as I type!

People should watch sport as they are interested in sport. As they do with male competitors.The women's competitions could get increased inetrest through increased coverage.Getting them to get their kit off is not the answer to anything.

Agree with this. With one proviso - the interest in women's tennis will not increase until the strength in depth increases and we see fewer of theses 6:0 6:1 score lines. These sort of results are simply not watchable to genuine sports enthusiasts who like to see real competition.

It is ironic that in past years when the Williams sister were at their peak some people moaned (especially men) that Serena and Venus were 'butch', muscular and 'unfeminine' (probably because blokes knew that the Williams' could kick their arses to the kerb without any effort at all and we know how delicate the male ego can be . Yet it was the Williams' that brought in the 120+mph serve and genuine power into the game. No wilting violets they! And even the 'glamorous' players like Sharapova took a leaf from their book, put in the gym work and showed that women's tennis does not have to be patty cake patty cake (pity about the strangled cat shriek though...) Navratilova and Court in earlier years were a couple who showed the same attitude but were rather exceptional then.

Oh, and men and their knicker fetishes should be ignored as they are not sports fans anyway just voyeurs.

Prize money is only there because of commercialism. If TV companies and spectators weren't prepared to pay to watch it, they wouldn't win any money.

So if you have a very attractive female player vs a less attractive female player

You can show that many men people are watching as they want to catch a glimpse of the attractive one's knickers.

Logically even if the less attractive one wins, the larger prize should go to the attractive one, as it was her who was garnering the viewers.

__

People should watch sport as they are interested in sport. As they do with male competitors.
The women's competitions could get increased inetrest through increased coverage.
Getting them to get their kit off is not the answer to anything.

People only think this is ok because it is sexist. And misogyny is so comfortable for most people.
Imagine there were disabled players at Wimbledon. They would definately bring in less viewing figures and would not be able to compete and win against the able bodied. But rightly there would be outcry if they were discriminated against!
Discrimination against women is so normalised people can't even see it.

So at the Olympics you would have the prizes based on how many viewers the things attracts.

How are you going to work that out with a global audience, different sports are popular in different countries. Don't you think that countries will be fucked off if their national sport that they always gets first and second in gets medals made of wood because their country has a small population?

"If thats what female sports stars want to do and so attract more money for themselves then again fine."

It is not fine to make women play in short skirts or lingerie in order to attract more viewers. I cannot begin to tell you how wrong wrong wrong that is. So we tell our little girls "yes try hard at sports but you won't be successful unless you have a face and figure that mean men want to fuck you, and you are prepared to play in a thong".

Honestly what is wrong with you people.

Sardine- I would do the same for the olympics, i'd link the prize money for a particular sport to its financial contribution to the tv revenue/sponshorship.

If a person enjoys being a professional at a sport that earns very little money but they still earn enough to live off then I don't see the problem.

If thats what female sports stars want to do and so attract more money for themselves then again fine.

Professional Sport has become far more commercialised in recent years but this has generally been a good thing as standards and viewing figures have increased.

unuat how are you going to differentiate the prizes in the Olympic games, where most of the people competing are professionals (some exceptions eg boxing)..?

What is your feeling about professional sports people in sports that do not garner much interest / television coverage etc. Should they even bother?

If it is reduced to a simple calculation of "whatever gets watched most gets the most money" what do you think that will do to sport? Do you think it will be a positive thing?

What do you think that will do to women's sports where already there is a strong pressure for women to wear skimpy clothes in order to attract coverage / viewers (see what nearly happened with Badminton, and the lingerie league).

Really do you think having cash as the bottom line, the motivator, the be all and end all in sport, will be good for sport?

This thread is so depressing. Of course pay for men and women in tennis tournaments should be equal. It's awful that people on here are arguing against this basic principle.

The argument that men should get more because they generate more tv/sponsorship money just ignores (and perpetuates) the entirely sexist factors that have contributed to an under-recognition and under-appreciation of women's sport.

squeaver Actually the crash volley style of men's tennis went out a couple of decades ago with the changes in grass surface at Wimbledon (much slower), the changes in balls and the fact that there are hardly any grass courts left. The US and Australian opens switched to hard surfaces years ago. There are only one or two men in the top 100 who play the serve volley game now. Henman was one of the last and Stepanek who played this afternoon was another rare example. This means the game is much more attritional which is why so few top male players can do the double.

I would like to see women in the slams play five sets just as the men do. It could be accommodated with an earlier morning start and routine playing on the middle Sunday. Women are not fragile butterflies but fit sports people and the fact that they don't is redolent of the "but their wombs might fall out" argument used to deprive women in sport in the way that women were prevented in athletics from running more than 800 metres until a few decades ago. It is insulting.

Depriving them of five sets also means they do not have a chance to stage a comeback even after losing two sets. How many men do we see win in five sets? A lot. Rosul/Nadal last night was a classic example, and who can forget the 2008 Nadal/Federer final (for example)?

It would spur women on to be even fitter and train even harder and then maybe we would see more strength in depth in the women's game and fewer of these rather embarrassing 6:0, 6:1 routs, which, frankly are tedious and it's no wonder that the men's game is (generally) more interesting and more competitive.

I'm sure the older posters among us can remember when first Tuesday at Wimbledon was "ladies day". It is still is called that because that's when the previous champion opens proceedings on Centre Court but it used to be that it was only women's matches that day. And the gates were down, which is why Wimbledon changed it to mix men and women's matches from day one.

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between amateur and professional sport, Professional Sport relies on entertaining fans in order for it to remain in existence. If Premier League football didn't entertain people no-one would watch it at the ground or on TV and they would quickly go out of business. Of course winning is the most important aspect of this as if your team/individual loses then it is unlikely that you will have enjoyed it. Amateur sport is played purely for enjoyment and fitness.

In relation to Wimbledon, if the men's tennis event generates more money through tv/sponsors then they should receive more money. Similarly women's tennis generates more than the mens/womens/mixed doubles so individual women players should receive more prize money than the mens/womens/mixed doubles players IMO.