Women's tennis and equal pay

[messyisthenewtidy]

Can I ask what everyone thinks re. the recent furore over women's equal prize money at Wimbledon?

Surely, the fairest solution would be to let women play 5 sets? Or am I missing something fundamental here?

I don't think you're missing anything. Anything other than equal pay for equal work is sexism. If the women play 3 sets, and the men play 5, then the women's prize should be 3/5s of the men's.

Hmm, but men and women aren't equal in sport. Equal pay means the same money for the same work. None of the women can play tennis to the same standard as the men. That is why there are seperate competitions for the men and women.

If the winner of Women's Wimbledon competition wants equal pay then she needs to beat or at least draw with the top men.

Does the women's competition bring in as much money as the mens. What about mixed doubles?

I don't see why they have to play same number of sets, it should be related to ticket prices and income generated from sponsorship, advertising etc - is it cheaper to get a ticket for women's tennis? Or men could play fewer sets. Don't see why equality has to be about women measured against or criticised for not reaching male standards, it could change the other way.

But the amount of work doesn't equal number of minutes spent on court. If it did, then the champions who had longer matches should get more money. The work includes all of the training, exercise, nutrition, psychology that goes into it. A professional woman tennis player will be training full time, as will a professional man tennis player.

The idea of tennis is to win. It doesn't matter how much training a professional women tennis player has done, she cannot beat the men.

Would a woman be allowed to enter the men's competition? That would be a way of having equality.

Mens' tennis still draws more in terms of numbers than womens' tennis.
Women play fewer games by a long way.
I don't think it should be a strict pro rata pay, but no, I don't think they should get as much as the men do. They should have an equal size trophy though.

Surely the pay relates to the popularity with audiences?

Men's sport is in general more popular with audiences, so that means that (for example) the organisers can charge more for the TV rights to men's sport.

This is why male footballers are paid squillions and female footballers are paid peanuts. Nothing to do with how long they spend on the pitch.

There are examples in the other direction too (albeit fewer). Female models are generally paid more than male models. Not because they spend longer on the catwalk but because they are more in demand/women's fashion commands more popular interest. So it's more important to have a "known" female model.

It's all about how much demand there is for what they are providing, and therefore how much money the organisers can make out of them.

The frailty myth by collette dowelling would say otherwise tired.

When women first played professional tennis they were still wearing corsets and long skirts. There are stories of the winners leaving court soaked in blood from the whale bones digging into them.

So they were bleeding, unable to breath properly and wearing hot cumbersome clothing. Yet they were only allowed to play 3 sets as they were too fragile to play 5.

Rules of sports are just made up by people. There is no reason, other than the people who decide these things, that men and women couldn't play the same number of sets, or even play each other.

Most opponents who do not want women and men to receive equal prize money in tennis base their argument on some men having to play longer matches in some tournaments.

I think that all male and female professional tennis tournaments are best of three sets, except for the four Grand Slam tournaments, Davis Cup, and the final of the Olympic Games, in which men play best of five sets.

In the tournaments where men may have to play more sets than women, often men win matches in three sets, and often women win matches in three sets.

Should prize money for the women and men be proportional to the number of points, games or sets that they played in a tournament? Should a player receive less prize money this year because they needed fewer points, games or sets to win than they needed last year? Should champions who were in the easier half of the draw have their prize money reduced? I don't think so.

I think the prize money should be for beating all the opponents that you have to beat, not for how easy or difficult your victories happened to be. On that principle, I think men's and women's prize money should be equal.

Women are not allowed to play 5 sets at Wimbledon though. If they let women play 5 sets then they would need to be paid the same.

We need to change the rules to allow women to play 5 sets first.

Do they actually get paid pro rata the same as men now on the basis of hours on court? Do women's games attract the same number of specators and TV audience figures?

and it just IS very important to say 'we value and want to promote female athletic and sporting achievement' instead of comparing it unfavourably and unfairly to men, who have of course not had centuries of opposition and prejudice to overcome, who are allowed to hone their bodies and their skills without people squealing about their reproductive health

it's a bit horse before cart to expect the public to take women's achievements in sport as seriously as they currently do men's when women are paid less, if at all (see football for example) and get little to no publicity or recognition

Out of interest, is women's tennis less exciting? (it all looks pretty similar to me) - is it desirable to knock someone out by just powering through serves or is a good back and forth what makes a match exciting?

I think it's all a bit chicken and egg - women's tennis isn't as popular, so it's not on TV as much (or as prominently) therefore it doesn't get a chance to get popular.

Justifying prize money on the number of sets is ridiculous - as vesuvia points out - they don't get prize money increased or decreased based on how quickly they finish of the opponent otherwise

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.

Sport is entertainment imo. It doesn't matter how hard you train I think the reward has to depend on the audience it attracts. Women's tennis does not command the same interest as men's (evidence the tournaments for only one gender) and prize money usually reflects this. I have no doubt minority sport athletes train just as hard as the lucrative ones. Just as many other jobs have different pay regardless of how hard the work is.

At Wimbledon I love that the men play 5 sets, it is a real test. I would not want the women to play that long, (I'm usually impatient for them to finish so the men can come on) and tournament officials would rather they didn't because of the tight 2 week schedule.

Personally I don't like watching women's tennis nearly as much as men's but at tournaments where both play I accept that they must both have equal prizemoney. Otherwise you'd have to have a way of working out if the women are less of a draw than men and at Wimbledon the place is packed and a sell out all the time.

I think the prize money should be for beating all the opponents that you have to beat, not for how easy or difficult your victories happened to be. On that principle, I think men's and women's prize money should be equal.

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

Prize money varies from tournament to tournament. In general it is higher for the more prestigious tournaments, because the standard is higher and so the organisers can charge more for tickets/TV rights and so offer more by way of prize money.

The same applies to mens vs womens section of each tournament.

Cross posted (and agreed ) with nemno

There is no doult that female athletes push their bodies to the limit. However women do not perform to the same standards as men.

Prehaps while we are at it we should have equal pay for the para olympics. Afterall disabled atheletes have a far tougher challenge to complete than any able bodied athelete.

I think that if a woman wants equal pay then she should give equal performance. Ie. let the women complete with the men and beat them. These competitions are about winning.

Sailing is an example of a sport where women have equality. Ellen MacArthur's sailing feats are on a level with the top men.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_MacArthur

Otherwise you'd have to have a way of working out if the women are less of a draw than men and at Wimbledon the place is packed and a sell out all the time. nemno I'm sure they can look at TV audience figures, in fact I expect the cost of the TV rights is based on this.

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.

Yet this myth persists that unless women can beat men in a direct contest, they are in some way inferior.

Would it be cruel and sadistic to make the women's matches 5 sets like the men's? Maybe back in the days of long skirts and corsets the women were handicapped and couldn't play as long, but that was a long time ago.

I actually thought that tennis was the one sport where women get as much attention as men. Or maybe that's just the prima-donna aspect of it and when they're actually playing, the allure is less.

You are probably right minipie but I have the TV on throughout whatever match is on, I do switch channels if I have a choice. How is this stuff measured accurately btw? And surely you buy 'Wimbledon' TV rights not 'Wimbledon men' or 'Wimbledon women' TV rights. TV rights for single sex tournaments are easy to determine for this purpose.

Onehand, I thought the heavyweight category is the most prestigious and lucrative No?

"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.

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!

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