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?

Why would "everyone be happy" about mens singles being reduced to 3 sets?

Because men would then have the opportunity to participate in the doubles.

It just seems to me that sport should not be about being the absolute best in the world, but about working damn hard and striving to be the best in your group (as SQ said above), the best according to your abilities, and being rewarded for that.

And, surely girls would be encouraged to go into sport more if there wasn't this "I'll never be as good as a boy" mentality.

"I am genuinely quite shocked"

i'm shocked by the whole thread SQ - like you am assuming it's a wind-up. still very depressing though, the idea that women's success doesn't count if it doesn't measure up in exactly the same way as men's.

The problem is women have started from such a position of disadvantage that the interest in women's sport is inevitably lagging behind the interest in men's sport. Barely a lifetime ago, women barely participated in public sports at all. Equality would take forever if left to market forces of tournament sponsorship etc. Which corporate would take that risk?

IMO, equal prize money is good because it incentivises young women to train hard and become the best they can be in their category (or in the world in unisex sports like sailing). As women improve, and the prize fund increases, public interest increases (see the wonderful NZ silver ferns as an example), and women's tournaments get more sponsorship, TV deals and spectators, which in turn gets more young women into sport etc.

No idea why women shouldn't play 5 sets though.

At the Olympics the prizes are the same for men and women. Do people think this should be changed, given the different viewing figures?

The Olympics is the Olympics precisiely because it can afford to be different. If iteran liek any other commercia sports circuit you would soon have huge discrepancies in prizes between sports and sexes.

whatmeworry the prizes are the same at most competitions.

Would you want to change that.

Even at the most junior level males and females get the same prizes for their groups eg certificates or medals.

And different types of sport get the same prize eg with swimming races like the crawl, relay and freestyle are arguably more popular to watch than the backstroke. i don't think people who win at the backstroke should get "inferior" prizes to people who win at the crawl [confused.

I can't think of a competition where men compete against men and women against women where women are given a smaller prize because they are "inferior". It doesn't happen and any sports meets around here AFAIK. When DH swam for his school the prizes were the same as for his female relative who was also very good and went to the same meets.

I think what this shows up is that fundamentally a lot of people believe that sport is for men and it's men who should compete in it and they are the only ones worth watching.

I really can only believe this is a wind-up. Or that many people are a little confused as to what sport is, and how a competition works.

Say you enter a pub quiz. The prize is £50.

Last week the team who won got 100 points. They won £50.

This week, the team who came first won with only 50 points. They win £50.

According to many on this thread, they should only have got £25. But that is not how competitions work in real life and I am surprised that some people think that it is.

Wind-up for sure.

I think the difficulty with tennis is that there is no "pay" - there is prize money and then there is the cup/plate given to the winner and runner up.

I equate the prize money to pay. I think it's fair enough that the pay depends on how in-demand the sport is and how much money it generates. For example I think it's fair that male footballers are paid more than female footballers - since their sport is far more watched and generates far more money.

However SQ you are not equating the prize money to pay - you are saying it's just a prize, like a medal or a cup. If that were the case then I would agree with you, it's wrong that men and women should get different prizes. But since the winners in tennis also get a cup/plate, I think the prize money should really be seen as pay.

I agree with Marmite, what you see on a tennis court is only the tip of the expensive iceberg; men and women players presumably invest much the same in terms of money and time into their training and all the experts they pay to make them into the players they are.

But they are equal - two top women playing each other are giving 100% the way the men are. What is being said on here is that because men are generally physically stronger, they're worth more.

So logic would then suggest that men should simply be rewarded because they're stronger. How does that apply to the fire service, the police force etc ?

The main physical differences between men and women are that men are stronger hence they get paid more whilst women give birth hence they get paid less. Hmmm.... Something smells fishy ...

I think in arguing for equal pay in Tennis, with it's different length matches and huge reliance on rivalries and characters we are getting bogged down in an unsolvable problem.

For me the main issue is not equal pay for incredibly well paid individuals, but ordinary every day sport.

As the mother of two DDs it's the total lack of any TV time for women's football, cricket and golf. The total ignoring of hokey, netball and other women's sport that makes me angry.

I want the BBC and Channel 4 to see showing and encouraging women's sport as part of their remit. I want a tax levy on premier football teams to support girls and boys football.

Advertising, sponsorship and prize money will only come if women's sport has a following. How can it have a following if we never see any?

Generally, women in sport are seen as second class citizens compared to the men, as though men playing sport is natural and the women are an anomaly.

However, seeing that Maria Sharapova is the highest earning female athlete ever attracting millions in sponsorship and viewing figures and works incredibly hard, it is insulting to her to say her efforts and achievements are less than a man's.

Everyone is competing at the top level putting in a huge amount of work and allocating money on the basis of chromosomes is silly.

I have always held the view of equal pay for equal work.

The ladies do not play nearly as many games as the men, so why should they then be paid more per game than the men?

The prize fund is for the tournament, not the amount of training they have doen in the run up to it.

Maybe they should change the pay scale to a set amount per game/set played?

minipie it's not pay it's a prize.

The people who do not come high enough to get a prize do not get anything - it is not pay for work done.

Football players on contacts are being paid.

you are comparing apples and oranges.

A prize is a prize is a prize, whether it takes the form of a trophy, certificate, cash, vouchers, training with a top trainer, whatever. The prize at wimbledon consists of a bunch of things - cash, trophy, name on winners list in the club house and so on.

But have the women not campaigned to play the same number of sets anyway and if so why are they not allowed?

you may have convinced me SQ

as an aside, if the ones who crash out early get nothing, how does anyone afford to be a tennis player (unless & until they have success)? Are they all from rich families? Or do they have day jobs?

I just googled this story, I didn't realise it was all over the papers!

Just looked at the daily mail and it seems that all of the men are joining in saying "snoffair" and it's all a big hoo-ha.

I had no idea.

i think there are a variety of things.
They get sponsored by people, businesses, their local clubs, that sort of thing.
Their parents make huge sacrifices and make their child's tennis stuff their life, ferrying them around everywhere and so on (like Tom Daly's dad did).
They often seem to have hyper-involved tennis coach parents.

That's kind of guesswork though i don't really know.

"Maybe they should change the pay scale to a set amount per game/set played?"

Then it's in the interests of players to fix the matches to go on longer.
It wouldn't work at all.

mm yes I guess they're mostly still teenage when they're working their way up aren't they. So not living independently anyway.

YY they do all the junior tournaments and I guess if they are good can start getting some prize money in them, I don't know if it's much though.

The female players seem to move to professional at about 14 or 15. Male players are a bit older although I think boris becker was 17 or something when he first won wimbledon?

But it's not a level playing field is it? The women are barred by the rules from playing 5 sets.

It's ridiculous to suggest women should be paid less simply on the basis of time played. It's like barring women from education then complaining that they can't spell.