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

Djokovic's comments made me think of treaclesoda's comment on the equal pay thread, "If it became known that Ms X negotiated a pay rise, Mr Y and Mr Z would be knocking on the boss's door the next week assuming they're entitled to one".
As if he thinks, well I'll be damned, they jolly well did it. Good on them. Of course that must mean that we men are well overdue a payrise because we're better. Right, I'm off down the corridor to hammer on the door....

Is that true though, that women just aren't interested in sport?

Aren't as interested is what people are saying.
It wouldn't surprise me, although it does vary from sport to sport. Tennis seems to have a lot of female fans.

I suppose it depends on the sport too. I guess, in the US, different sports predominate.

Is that true though, that women just aren't interested in sport? A quick Google shows me that US tv audiences for major sports are fairly evenly split between genders. I'd like to know more about it before making a definite statement about audience gender split.

Mmm....I kind of get what arsenal is saying. Women ARE less interested in sport than men, in general, and audiences for sport, whether live or on the box, are overwhelmingly male, for most sports at least, and most definitely the high income sports such as soccer. Even then, not all soccer players are well-paid; payments are made according to the entertainment value given.

Sports such as women's football and rugby, whilst not attracting as many people to watch, are at least growing and are more visible, which has to be a good thing. If nothing else, at least these female players will provide excellent role models.

Tennis, I think, is more complex. I'd say the audience is mixed, but perhaps more female. Even so, male players seem to be more popular and thus command more in terms of sponsorship, airtime etc. But I think that's changing, too, slowly. It's not a level playing field, so to speak.

Ah that'll be like women don't go into technology careers because they're not interested, won't it?

(You're talking bollocks, arsenaltilidie.)

What a moronic statement.

Oh, thank goodness someone has come along to explain it! That's all sorted then.

The reason women are paid less is because women aren't interested in sports as much as men.

Thats the very reason why female models are paid more than their male counterparts. Men arent interested in fashion as much as women.

Just found this article, from 2014 so a little out of date, but it has a comparison of prize money by gender across a range of sports:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29665693

Ice skating and gymnastics (artistic) seem to have the same prize money.

What happens in ice skating or gymnastics?

Except that they don't attract the same payments as tennis or football.

Agree with others that womens games should stand alone and not compared to men for all the reasons previously stated

If womens sports were seen as the default i think attitudes would be different

The Indian Wells guy, Raymond Moore, has resigned this morning.

The women's football team for England are not as skilful as the men. Therefore it is not the best football to watch.

You know why? Because the top women's football players get paid something like £20k a year, not £20 million or whatever their male counterparts are paid. Some of them have had to take second jobs to pay the bills. Some of them have had to sofa-surf with friends, because they couldn't afford to keep a roof over their heads. If they were paid equitably with men, they could dedicate themselves solely to their training and wouldn't have to worry about doing wife work at home - they could afford cleaners or childcare or whatever would make their lives a bit easier. They'd be able to focus on the game without distracting worries like whether they can afford the electricity bill or council tax this month.

Given the completely uneven field they're playing on compared with the men's teams, it's hardly a surprise they're not as skillful. They're doing pretty well for what they do get, I reckon. It'd be nice to see them getting sponsorship deals for things other than sanitary pads, too, but that's probably more than they had before the world cup.

Fgs, no one has said all women's sport is of a very high standard. You've missed the point, as Scallops has said. It's about women's sport being valuable and worthy in itself, not in comparison to men's sport.

isn't it?

It's interesting how you say you don't care whether you are watching men or women's sport but then spend three paragraphs telling us how you do in fact mind .

It's all about women's sport being 'worthy' isn't. Something men's sport never has to be. Worthy of course, being defined by men.

I don't really care about whether I am watching a man or a woman play sport. What I do want to see is the best sport. Nina Carberry rides racehorses as well as the men. Zara Philips and other women ride 3 day event as well as the men. The women's football team for England are not as skilful as the men. Therefore it is not the best football to watch. The defensive mistakes that lead to goals are horrendous and so is the goalkeeping. The women's rugby team are bit like watching a school XV. Not their fault but even if it was on at the same time of day, and instead of the men's 6 Nations, I would not watch.

We occasionally buy debenture seats at Wimbledon. Women's days are considerably cheaper. These tickets are sold on a pure market value basis. I enjoy women's tennis but people do prefer to watch the men. I doubt the viewing figures for the women would be greater than the men even if they did play on Sunday. Lots of women watch tennis. They prefer to watch the sheer power and athleticism of the men. Having said that, SW is perfection.

We cannot pretend all women's sport is top class. Clearly some of it is average and I am not interested in watching it. Neither are lots of people. However, it is great to celebrate top class sporting achievement by women but saying all women's sport is brilliant is deluded and will not persuade the average sports fan to part with cash or switch on the tv. That does not mean women should not participate if they want to.

Here's another take on the subject.

By Djokovic's reasoning, maybe they should also pay male players according to the crowds they attract instead of a fixed prize.

Basically some men will look for any reason they can point to, to prove why they're superior to women and deserve more of the Earth's resources.

He and men like him show us why we still need feminism.

Why thank you scallops

Love your nickname MyNameIsInigoMontoya

Oops just saw that is what Lweji linked to so please ignore me!

Yes treaclesoda, reminds me of something I saw recently about a female surfer - I think she was top in the world or something, but the article was saying she was not getting sponsorship due to being judged not "attractive" enough, despite her talent. (Will look for the link later if I remember, unless anyone else has it handy?).

Mide7 I agree with what your saying crappymum but also agree women's sport should be valued more.

I would agree that more could be done to promote women's sport and so on, but I have a feeling that there is no rule of the universe saying that if all else was equal except what happens on the pitch (or other playing arena), women's sport would be just as popular as men's.

Anymore than there is a rule about bowling "having" to be as popular with the general public as football and it is only the lack of TV coverage and promotion of bowling that is preventing what "ought" to be happening from happening.

In some sports, such as snooker say, there are objective stats to say such things as the ratio of centuries to non-centuries tends to be higher when men play, and so on. And if part of what snooker fans like to see are big breaks then there is no law saying they should have to forgo this in order to be "equalists".