Equality vs merit vs markets

Bit then the 100m is watched by more people than a marathon

"Well look at it from Djokovic's point of view. Imagine you work a 5 day week, and your colleague does the same job only 3 days a week. " But that isn't the case.

It would be like saying that a 100m sprinter gets paid a fraction of a marathon runner.

"I have never understood why women don't demand to play the same number of sets as the men." They have and still are.

Grimarse, iirc women have asked for 5 set games but have been turned down (at Wimbledon) because it would interefere with the scheduling having the longer matches.

Yes, equalise it, that would be absolutely fine by me. 3 sets or 5, whichever the tennis head honchos would prefer.

The point is that the womens game is seen as an add-on, a side issue, to the "proper" sport of the men's game. There is no value seen in encouraging women into sports. Grimarse, do you think women's sport is valuable as an entity on it's own?

Or, if time is the issue (which I understand it to be) then do as they do in UFC - standard matches are 3 sets, then the final (or past some pre-determined point), it switches to 5 sets.

Well look at it from Djokovic's point of view. Imagine you work a 5 day week, and your colleague does the same job only 3 days a week. Are you happy if you both get paid the same for doing the same work? Are you allowed to bring the subject up at work? What if only men were given the 3 day option, but all women had to work 5 days?

I think that most tennis tournaments are 3 set matches for both men and women. It may only be the majors that have the 5 set matches (I could be wrong here), so it wouldn't be a big upheaval for women to start playing 5 sets.

I know it goes deeper than this but if the male players bring in more money why shouldn't the earn more. I always think it's a chicken and the egg thing with women's sport. If more people were interested than it would receive more coverage but if it received more coverage then more people would be interested.

Maybe if the women played 5 sets it would be the final match as it would be longer and (possibly) more interesting/exciting to watch?

Yes they do pay the same. That's not the point though, as clearly the attitudes of some of the men involved at the top of the sport doesn't match that fact. If it wasn't an issue, no one would mention it.

I don't really care whether the women play 5 sets or the men play 3, equalising it would be perfectly OK. But the fact is that at the moment the women are only being asked to play 3 sets.

Also, if the men's/women's matches are valued the same, why is that not reflected in the match scheduling? Why is the men's final the last match of most tournaments? Wouldn't it make sense to alternate it each year?

Do you really think that women's sport is equally valued compared to men's?

I have never understood why women don't demand to play the same number of sets as the men. Surely that would end the arguments. As for women's sport not being as valued - Wimbledon and the US Open pay both genders the same. I suspect other tournaments do too, but I can't be arsed googling them all.

Well, one question to ask is who decides when matches are scheduled on court and shown on TV? Who decides on how much time is dedicated to interviewing and discussing the men's tennis and the women's tennis? If prize money is to be distributed according to viewing/attendance figures it had better be very clear that the men's and women's matches are both given an equal footing so that they can compete equally.

This whole debate is spectacularly disappointing and just goes to show that women's sport is not valued at all, and that men's sport is the "real" sport and women should just be lucky they get anything at all.

I'm not going to offer any help MN but I'm glad you started this topic because I read it earlier and was equally confused.