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?

BIWI is right. The lack of money at the top means there is also a shocking lack of money at the bottom. The talent pool in women's sports is therefore much smaller than it should be, because so many talented young girls don't have the financial means to progress through the sport.

It is very simple. If lots of women went and watched women's sports, the media would show more of them, more sponsorship would be attracted, and the prize money would go up.

The inconvenient truth is that most women are not particulalrly interested in sport overall, and it all goes from there.

Women might not be as interested as men are in men's sports, but how can you assume that women are not interested in sport in general?

Because they don't pay for their interest. The media follow the money. No money, no media. No media, no sponsorship. If large numbers of women watched women's sport and paid money, you bet it'd be on prime time TV.

Why should women go and support women's sport? Why can't men go and support women's sport, in the way that women go and support men's sport?

The thing that I find most depressing on this thread is the lack of willingness to want women to have equality. To create conditions where their sports can get more media coverage and therefore earn more money to create more prizes and train more talent. Why don't you want women to have equality and why do you begrudge it when it is granted to them.

That's what's really depressing and, actually, quite offensive. It is hideously sexist and misogynistic.

Equality is a strange term when used in connection with sport, the very definition of which is a strict competitive meritocracy. Real equality is one tournament. What you are asking for is not equality but positive discrimination, which is completely different.

How about equality in the world of supermodels? Why should men not be paid the same as women for attending Milan fashion week (for instance), regardless of the relative popularity of the male and female models?

Equality is not a strange term at all. The women have their championship at Wimbledon and the men have theirs. Their different physiques would make it pointless for them to play each other. This makes it more equal and they get the same prize money for it.

Nothing strange about that at all.

Oh dear Whatmeworry. You'd never get very far in a philosophy class with that assertion.

How do you know women aren't interested in sport? is it because you don't see it on the TV? Or you don't see women flocking to (male) sporting events? Or is it because organised sports fund and favour boys. Or is it because girls especially are socialized to be embarrassed about their bodies and are actively discouraged from physical fitness. Just ask any woman who regularly goes running about the added hurdles of being sporty in public when in possession of two X chromosomes.

However, go to the spaces where men don't frequent and you will see plenty of women playing sport in a socially acceptable manner. You don't see a preponderance of men in Zuma or yoga classes. This is the socially acceptable place for women to exercise. The fact is, many women play sport. Because our lives are restricted in a way that men's aren't (how many men routinely prioritise childcare over sport?) women tend to play sport in private. As always I offer up as evidence the holy grail of UK sport, the men's England football team. This team hasn't won a major championship in 45 years. The women's England football team are far, far more successful yet you won't see them on TV or feted in the press. As always, women are expected to be invisible and not challenge men.

Plus I have a sneaking suspicion that men are uneasy at the specter of strong, athletic women in public. It's OK if they are slight and pretty, but if they are strong and muscular then the abuse and insults start. You only have to look at some of the tweets circulating about Serena Williams on Saturday to see that. many mentions of hidden cocks etc.

That's what's really depressing and, actually, quite offensive. It is hideously sexist and misogynistic

Oh come on, this is just about basic economics, not hideously offensive sexist misogyny. This is entirely due to the majority of women not being that interested in women's sport (or men's sport for that matter).

If women were truly interested in women's sport they would pay money to see it, and buy Hockey Today instead of Hello!, and off it would most certainly take.

I agree with whatmeworry.

I know of countless numbers of men who spend hundreds of pounds each year following and participating in sport.

I know of hardly any women who do likewise. My DP will sit there, hour after hour, watching ladies golf (yes, they call it that!), but it leaves me unmoved, as does most sport, regardless of the gender of the participants.

And yes, I love my gym classes. But I wouldn't pay money to watch somebody else do body combat.

Do you not believe in equality for women then?

"The women's England football team are far, far more successful yet you won't see them on TV or feted in the press. As always, women are expected to be invisible and not challenge men."
Nope. It's because if you judge the football on merit it's not nearly as good as an average men's match. It's slower, less skilful, less powerful and they tire earlier.

How to change the cycle?
Why do women playing women's football have to play by the same rules? Making the pitch 80% of the size would mean fewer long balls into space and more ball skills used and less running. You could reduce the games to 80 minutes, or divide it into quarters rather than halves meaning the players will stay fresher at the end of the game.
Make the game different, more suited to women and harder to judge by the standard of the men's game.

I do believe in equality for women. But I don't see this as an equality for women issue.

Take the age old debate about premier league footballers and nurses. Morally, should nurses have to work for a year to earn what Wayne Rooney gets in one day? No, of course not. It's disgusting.

But we live in a country with a free market, and so morals have nothing to do with it - market forces do. Money in sport comes from people paying to watch. It's that simple.

At the fitness end of the scale, women probably do as much running/ gymming etc as men do, or more. But those aren't spectator sports.

If you judge a game on merit then surely the women's team should be paid more. They do, after all, do better than the men in international competitions.

It's not noticeably slower than the men's game, the power issue is one of the physical difference between men and women and the tiring issue could have something to do with the fact that the men are professionals, that's all they do and they have the access to the best training and physical support. The women, on the other hand, all have full time jobs in addition to their football. The fact is, women are demonstrably better at physical endurance than men. Make Wayne Rooney put in a full day on the factory floor, a shift at home then use the second class training facilities and I think you would notice the playing field leveling sharply.

To argue that men's football (or any sport) is "better" based on an arbitrary set of criteria that will always disadvantage women is, in itself, highly mysoginistic.

Slug, they are not paid on merit. They are paid on marketability.

As larrygrylls said, to take the merit argument to it's conclusion, why should female tennis players be paid more than male squash players?

Again, with Wimbledon it is not them being paid, it is a prize!

Yup, sorry krumbum.

That is what I meant.

During a break in yesterday's ODI between England and Australia there was an interview with Claire Taylor, the best female ODI player in the world (now retired) and the only female cricketer to be named Wisden's player of the year.

She explained that she had to give up her well paid job and move back in with her parents in order to do the training that got her to that position. She said that lost her £250,000 over four years a decade ago - a clear example how lack of funding and the need to earn a living while training is a block on advancing in women's sport.

Since then the sport has attracted more funding, it is extensively covered by Sky with ex England cricketers turned commentators like Michael Atherton, David Gower, Nasser Hussein covering the commentaries and having no problem in treating the women's game completely seriously. The England women's teams have been consistently the best in the world at test, ODI and Twenty cricket in recent years.

It is an example of what can be done when women's sport is taken seriously. Attention and funding breeds interests, breeds success etc.

(Claire also noted somewhat philosophically though ruefully that in 2005 the women's team said they felt they "had" to win the Ashes against Australia because then they might get to join the London bus tour celebration of the men's Ashes winning team - which they did, in the second bus).

I know a lot of people on here hate Sky because of Murdoch, but give it its due it had done more to highlight women's sport - covering cricket, football and rugby - than Auntie BBC.

However, I maintain women should play 5 sets at the slams and that not to be given the opportunity (which female tennis players have asked for) is actually discriminating against them. How often do we see top players come back from two sets down by changing their game plan, lifting their game etc. No reason not to think that would also happen with the top women players too. And it would mean that those outside the top ranks would know they must train even harder and get even stronger to compete with the top 20, improving standards and probably lowering the rate of these 6:0, 6:1 sets which, frankly, are mind-numbingly boring.

Not to derail...(well a bit) but on the grunting/shrieking issue, it is heartening that the WTA is examining ways of diminishing it for youngsters coming in (maybe a decibel reading with limits apparently) and that Sharapova is on record last week of saying it is a good idea. She said her habit is so ingrained she cannot stop now (apparently!).

An important reason it should be stopped is not just because of distraction but because the noise masks the sound of the ball on the strings as it is hit. A flat stroke or serve sounds very different from a slice or topspin stroke and opponents rely on sound as well as arm movements etc. to pick up the type of shot that they are facing.

Oh dear, sorry for the essay, but am trying to add something positive to the debate and take it away from the usual male v female argument.

But the market is skewed in men's favour. Grimbletart makes that point.

The media are incredibly sexist in their portrayal of women's sport. It's one of my slight obsessions. I daily chart and tweet the ratio of men's to women's sports coverage in the papers. the ratio, depending on the paper is, at best, 1:4. Many papers (The Independant is particularly bad about this) routinely mention no women at all. Does this mean women aren't playing sport? Hell no. Does this mean women aren't playing high level sport and winning? Of course not. The coverage you do see is routinely sexualised. Heaven forbid that we would get a picture of Jessica Ennis in a tracksuit and not showing off her abs. And despite being a minority sport, beach volleyball gets more coverage than you would normally expect. The reporting and the images are all aimed at the male market.

As is so often the case, "marketability" really translates as "the men's market". Sport is not marketed at women at all, except in a "get yer tits out for the team" kind of way. There's a certain sort of reality there. Men in our society have much more free time and have more disposable income that isn't tied to home or children.

Slug, you make fair points. But I don't agree that the market is unfair. The market is based on profit and loss.

The ad people could market women's sport to me until my eyes bled, but I will never pay to watch sport.

David Beckham in tight shorts? Yes please. But I will never watch football.

If there really was a market, the ads etc would follow. And while I agree that sports journos are also guilty of neglecting women's sport, they are also guilty of neglecting Any Sport but Football.

And the papers still sell. In Scotland, some of them are displayed in shops back to front, so that the real reason for buying it (football) is seen first.

Slug is right about the coverage and the slanting.

But I think there is more to it. There have always been female sports 'tragics' such as Slug and me but you only have to read some of the threads on Mumsnet to come across comments from women about hating sport, couldn't stand it at school, worrying about messing up their hair, getting sweaty or worrying what boys think (now that makes me incandescent). Who gives a flying wotsit what boys think? Contrary to some opinions we are not put on earth simply to worry what boys think. Girls are not appendages to a male default and while some girls think they are, progress will be slow in those areas where what boys think is deemed important. We still see it in education sometimes (though not to the same degree) as in "boys don't like clever girls". So bloody what?

Girls need to be brought up to see themselves as autonomous entities - not optional add-ons as is still, in many cases happening. Once that attitude is consigned to history we will see things change faster in sport just as we are in education, jobs and so on.

MorrisZapp is right about football though. How often do we hear that England/Britain are 'plucky losers'. Never win at sport. What they really mean is football as if that is the be all and end all of sport. Obviously these critics have never heard of cricket, cycling, rowing, sailing, equestrian sports, motor racing, snooker, boxing, triathlon etc. etc.

DP is sports mad. He has just uttered this pearl: 'womens tennis is shit to watch'.

I'm equally happy to relax with a pimms in front of men's or women's tennis, but as a non fan, I don't know how to read the game. DP has no axe to grind, he genuinely gets less pleasure from watching the women's games.