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?

missmaviscruet - 'are you a man?' was a question not an accusation. It was to clarify something in my and Helxi's posts.

That was all. Please don't try and make something of that when it wasn't intended.

missmavis - well quite!

I'm not surprised that you imagined it was a new thing. But sadly, no, the prize was equalised 5 years ago and some people still haven't come to terms with it

Krumbum, are you serious? I don't think it's in dispute that the top female players can't match the top male players. Male players are stronger, faster, etc.

That's not the point ecclesvet. Women players have just as much talent and work just as hard but men have the lucky advantage of being born with more muscle tissue. Good for them but it's a bit arrogant of Simon to demand a higher fee for this good fortune.

I do dispute the idea that women's tennis isnt as entertaining though Personally I don't like big ace games as I appreciate tactics more. Hopefully well see plenty of that on Saturday.

They may be Faster but that is completely irrelevant to skill, a person is still using the same shots just slightly slower, how does that make them less skilled?

The reality is that no one wants the women to play 5 sets. They would get terminally bored. As it is, you only need to look at the spectator stands during women's matches in the grand slams and they are frequently 1/3 full. Also, if you look at the black market prices, tickets for the women's matches are about 1/3 that of the men's on a like-for-like basis.

Outside of the slams, women's tournaments generate a fraction of the income of the men's. Both men and women want to watch the top guys.

There is very little argument, other than political correctness, to offer women the same money unless they are prepared to compete directly against the men...and we all know how that would turn out.

"Women players have just as much talent and work just as hard but men have the lucky advantage of being born with more muscle tissue."

Yep, and lots of guys are small and not especially muscular with tons of talent and a great work ethic. Guess what? They earn zero prize money. Sport is all about the body you are born with.

"There is very little argument, other than political correctness, to offer women the same money unless they are prepared to compete directly against the men...and we all know how that would turn out. "

This is a nonsensical statement. The two championships are separate competitions. It is nothing to do with men playing the women.

Biwi,

The are separate competitions hosted by the same tournament, where the income is distributed not according to spectator popularity or tennis ability, but by political correctness.

As I said, look at the revenues individual men's and women's tournaments generate, look at the popularity of the contests by number of spectators or look at the black market prices for the quarters onwards (where the sexes alternate days). These are all good metrics to determine prize money distribution.

Why is it distributed by political correctness? It's the prize pot that is offered. The men and the women work just as hard to practice and train and play. They should therefore be offered just the same prize for winning.

Just did some quick research from the last round. I had a look at 'walkover sets', where the result was 6-0, 6-1 or 6-2, to gauge the uncompetitiveness of the men's and women's games.

Gentlemen:
13 uncompetitive sets out of 62 sets played. 21%.

Ladies:
15 uncompetitive sets out of 36 sets played. 42%.

Number of embarrassing matches, where the match was won in straight sets, all of which were uncompetitive, in the last 3 rounds.

Gentlemen:
2 embarrassing games out of 107 games. (5 games where somebody retired) 2%

Ladies:
17 embarrassing games out of 111 games. (1 retirement) 15%

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's a prize, it's not based on revenue. Wimbledon makes a lot more bloody money, the prize is pittance compared. Why should it have anything to do with revenue? No other competitions are.

It's the unsupportive attitude that depresses me. If people think women's tennis is inferior then why don't they support ways to encourage more women into the sport and widen the talent pool, to develop their game and experience further so they can enjoy the affirmation that men have received for longer?

Giving equal prize money is a way of saying we appreciate women's tennis and encouraging women into the game.

Why so unsupportive? And why focus on this one instance instead of all the other tournaments where men get paid more for 3 sets? It's as if people just don't care about women into sport. It's just depressing.

And - this is a nonsensical argument anyway, as the prize money is already equal and it was decided a number of years ago that it should be equal.

I'm sorry if some posters don't think it should be - although I'm that you wouldn't - but the fact is that it is.

I find it amazing that so many posters are unsupportive of this. It is not as the men had to give up any of their privilege to accommodate this. Why are they so bothered?

And while we are talking about standards in women's tennis, who gets to decide when women are of a sufficient standard to be worthy of equal recognition? A man?

Men are the default as usual. Women always being compared (and found lacking) in comparison to men. Quite awful.

And I agree with messy the way to increase strength in depth is not to give the women less in prizes but to help increase the pool, better coaching, better promotion, engaging the media. There have been some really cracking women's games at Wimbledon this year and they have had a fraction of the air time in the papers and reviews. The media can play a huge part in creating interest and heroes.

It is interesting to look at the "male gaze" when it comes to sport.

The whole "oh women's sport is less interesting" is societal misogyny as well.

I know Abigail. It's just one of those moments when you realise how little attitudes have changed.

It's the same with women's football and women's cricket and women's rugby.

There are some amazingly talented women, but they are held back in the development of their sport because the money just isn't there for them. From the grassroots it is nothing to do with how much revenue they earn. It's because the immediate assumption is that because they are women they will be no good at the sport. Thus the money isn't invested in the first place to help develop talent.

And the reason why men are so much more established in these sports is because they have enjoyed an extensive program of positive discrimination. It is shocking the reasons that were dragged out to keep women out of sports. Yet the mere whiff of positive discrimination in favour of women and they're up in arms. It's mind boggling....

When most people watch a football, cricket or rugby match, they will tend to chose who they support or a game they think with be entertaining or full of skill. Women are in direct competition with men. Not on the pitch, but on TV and in the stadiums. They compete for viewers and spectators.
Fewer viewers mean less money.
Less money means less able to improve.
Less able to improve means not as entertaining as men.
Which means fewer viewers.
It's a vicious cycle that's hard to get out of.

I want a separate tournament for short men born with bandy legs and shortsightedness. I am prepared to train hard and play hard and all I ask for is equal prize money. Anything else is plain prejudice.

Equality means playing in the same tournament against the men. As soon as a separate tournament exists, that is already positive discrimination.

And, by the way, some of the top women have made more than the top men, just through sponsorship rather than tournament winnings. I believe Sharapova is one of the (if not the) richest players in tennis of all time.

And for all those whining about vicious circles etc, why not get out and watch all these wonderful women and pay top money to do so. When women's tournament's are packed out and tickets go on the black market for more than men, then women should be paid more than men. If you all work together and get out supporting women's tennis, you could make it happen. However, the reality is, if offered a pair of tickets to watch Nadal/Federer or a pair to watch two female eastern block nonentities slug it out, I suspect that 98% of you would actually choose the former.

"Whining"? You wouldn't be setting out to be offensive here, would you, larry?

And why shouldn't Sharapova earn

a) a lot of money
b) more than men

... unless that's the problem? She should know her place and not earn so much money?

Actually I would and do watch female sport. I also watch male sport. I'd like to watch more female sport but it's not supported by the media that well.

Biwi,

It is not a problem at all, although the reason she can earn so much is because she has model looks...which you may regard as a problem, as it is lecherous men bestowing the money on her. No problem for me though.

Watching sport on TV is not really supporting female sport. Get to the tournament and show the media that there is a real appetite to watch it. The media follows the lead of paying spectators, not vice versa.

Fundamentally, there is only one reason that any sportsperson makes any money and that is because people are prepared to watch them play their sport. For that reason, the prize money has to be proportional to the income generated by tournaments, media and sponsorship.

People want to watch men play tennis more than women so men should be paid more. People want to watch women play tennis more than they want to watch men play squash (although it is one of the hardest sports in the world) so women tennis players earn more than male squash players. Why should income be equalised across one arena (women and men) and not another (popular and less popular sports)?