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

[sportinguista]

Because they have less spectators apparently. Is it me or does this just devalue women's sport?

The "men are better" argument is absurd. In football, for example, there are endless crap, dull matches, even in the Premier league. Men still watch them - they'd rather watch them than a really top-class women's game.

I have very little interest in sport, but my thoughts for what they're worth are that inequality of funding, time and aspiration are important factors in the difference in "quality" as discussed above. But also, sport, particularly football, has a toxically aggressive, tribal quality to it that's actively hostile to women. So women think, "This is not for me - I'm not welcome here," and don't take an interest. Fewer women watching means less interest and less funding for the women's game.

Because of historic inequality, we don't know what if any sports (equestrian aside) women would be able to compete in as equals to men. I don't see why in sports like darts and snooker, they shouldn't be able to. In chess, they certainly should (although it's not strictly speaking a sport). Ditto poker. But the whole nature and culture of sporting competition is so masculine, many women and girls just feel it is not for them. So a huge amount of potential talent is lost before it even enters the arena, so to speak.

www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/tennis-pay-should-reflect-society-says-djokovic-20160322107370

The Daily Mash sum it up perfectly. Just a reflection of the wider problem

The problem is that as usual, you cannot demand women are paid the same when there isn't the same interest. It's absurd to state that women footballers should be paid the same as men given the levels of interest. Women's golf is the same. Modelling is the same. This is not the same as someone getting paid less for the same job, it's not even a job.

However as I said on the other thread, Djokovic has put his foot in it here, Federer and Nadal are really the ones that draw the most attention on the men's tour, i think the reason the men's final in the US Open a couple of years ago got less viewers than the women's one is because none of the "big 4" men were in it. So on that basis alone, Djokovic would have to agree that the prize money should be shared based on demand for the game, he would get less than federer or nadal, and his male ATP colleagues would get less that Serena for example.

If it's unfair that women get paid a share of prize money based on the fact Federer is at the tournament, then how is it fair that David Goffin gets paid prize money based on that fact ?

Jilly the men are better argument isn't absurd. There is no question that top male athletes are far better than top women, if there was no segregation in tennis, there would be no women in the top 200 and hardly any in the top 1000. The attitude that women are just not as good is sadly hard to argue against when it comes to sports where the faster and stronger you are, the more successful you will be.

I would be interested to know what ideas people have about this, but I think that the word "women" in sports is used as an asterisk, i.e. not the best at it, just the best women.

Itllallbefine I think it is absurd, actually. We watch sport for the competition, not for the quality of the individuals taking part. I'm not suggesting that it's as exciting to watch a school sport's day as the Olympics, but the women's race in the London marathon, for example, is just as exciting as the men's even though it's ten minutes slower. I'm saying that a good game of women's football is more interesting to watch than a crap 0-0 draw between two teams of men, even if the individuals taking part are less skilled.

One issue is competitiveness.
It happens quite often that there are just a few fantastic women and many fantastic men in male dominated sports. Just because more men participate in general.
But in F1 nobody was saying that pilots should be paid less when Schumacher was winning it all and viewing figures were down. They were discussing how to make the races more competitive (i.e. levelling the field with Schumacher).

There was an earlier article (or something I read) where the author pointed out the extremes they'd go to see Murray play. I suspect a top British female player would attract similar crowds.

The problem is that as usual, you cannot demand women are paid the same when there isn't the same interest. It's absurd to state that women footballers should be paid the same as men given the levels of interest.

I'd go further than simply saying that the prize pot should be split in accordance to how much money the men and women's versions of tennis generate, I'd say that if it could be established that people were motivated to buy men's tickets by the presence of Male player X, and who would not have bought one without his presence, then he should get a bigger share of the money he helped to bring in, than other competitors. But then you run into practical difficulties in determining such things.

But overall I agree it is a odd notion to say that prize funds should be split to satisfy gender-equality. Immoral even, IF money that one group earned is being given to another. I'm not saying that this is necessarily happening. Maybe in practise they do generate roughly equal amounts for the tournament.

It'll- I disagree women aren't as good athletes but IMO if you're used to watching a certain sport with men playing then you get used to a certain style and speed of play then there is a big difference with watching women. At least that's my experience rugby

We watch sport for the competition

No, people watch sport because the admire the feats being performed, not just because it's close.. was Usain Bolts 200m world record racing boring because he won by a street ? If you want to see the fastest, strongest, hardest hitters etc, you need to watch the men's game. If you want to see the "best tennis player in the world" you would watch the men's final, I think this is behind a lot of the imbalance between prize funds, I'm not sure how you address it.

I don't see a problem with it to be honest. You simply don't hear people talking about top-flight female players as you do mens'. No-one complains that JK Rowling makes more money than Ian Mckellen. She generates more money, simple as that.

Sounds like people looking for inequality when it simply is not there.

If you want to see the "best tennis player in the world" you would watch the men's final

But if it was always the same best player winning, you'd lose interest. You don't just want to see the skill.
Or people wouldn't have complained about F1 turning into the Schumacher championship at some point. They'd have just enjoyed watching him race. Preferably lapping up track records and not necessarily with competition.

The same for Bolt. If he wasn't breaking records to keep the interest going, people would turn off if every race was a Bolt win.

I'm not so sure about that, I don't anything about F1 so can't comment on that sport. When was the last time you saw Bolt lose ? Also in this context, i don't remember anyone saying that women's tennis wasn't as interesting as men, because Serena has dominated to a much greater extent than any man has managed to do.

I've seen people complain how a women's game can end in less than one hour while men's can last for days. It's not just the number of sets, it's also how closely matched the players are.

Nobody wants to watch 30 sec of a boxing match, even though the winner may have shown great skill.
Having said that, Ronda Rousey's fights (MMA) were always hyped, mostly, though, regarding how fast she beat her opponents.

Maybe we should be talking about how to attract bigger audiences to women's sports instead of how much they are paid when in the same tournament.

"Maybe we should be talking about how to attract bigger audiences to women's sports instead of how much they are paid when in the same tournament."

For me this is the key.

people watch sport because the admire the feats being performed, not just because it's close

Not sure I agree tbh. The only sport I follow is equestrian sport, and I know a fair bit about it. Even so, I often can't tell what makes a dressage judge, for eg, give one rider a higher score than the next. I honestly don't believe that most people watching football can tell what nuance of tactic or technique makes one team beat another.

And then there's the issue of partisanship - if it was all about watching the best players give the best performance, why do people stick by their football team through thick and thin, even when they lose and get relegated, when they could switch allegiance to another team and carry on watching the game being played at the highest level?

I don't watch sport just to see the best/fastest/strongest - I think that's a really simplistic view of sport. I like watching the drama of competition, the relative performance of personal favourite sports people, the improvement of a younger athlete after a period of hard work etc etc. I like watching men's and women's sports, I like watching para-sport, I like watching amateur/local sport. Watching an athlete get an excellent personal best is as entertaining to me as Usain Bolt knocking out another sub-10 100m win.

Men are always going to be faster/stronger than women. So what? Why does that make all their sport "better" by definition? There are two human sexes, and I like to watch elite athletes in each sex category. I like watching the best para-athletes in their ability category. I like watching senior sport and seeing the best people in their age category. I once watched a seniors athletics competition with 90 yr old runners, jumpers and so on. It was an amazing day of sport.

To just say, well women's sport is unpopular so stuff it, is to dismiss all that completely valid sporting achievement as unimportant and irrelevant.

I've seen people complain how a women's game can end in less than one hour while men's can last for days. It's not just the number of sets, it's also how closely matched the players are.

That's true, but in the context of Indian Wells where all these comments arose from, it is perhaps worth noting that Djokovic crushed Raonic 6-2, 6-0 in precisely 1 hour and 9 minutes.

Most of the 9 minutes were taken up by Novak's endless pre-serve ball bouncing by the way..,….

See, they had the same number of sets as women. So, the same work, really.

It would be interesting if people paid at the end of each game according to what they thought the game had been worth. Like in some restaurants.

I don't watch sport just to see the best/fastest/strongest - I think that's a really simplistic view of sport. I like watching the drama of competition, the relative performance of personal favourite sports people

Me too, but I guess the masses out number us! :)
I find less quick motor sport just as exciting, even more so, than formula 1, but at the end of the day, more people are prepared to pay more money to watch the faster cars.

Why does 'best' automatically have to mean 'strongest'? Unless you're talking about weight lifting of course.

I think with Formula 1 it's more the 'glamour' than the speed. If people were really interested in speed, overtaking, and nerves of steel then motorbike racing would be far more popular than it is. Formula 1 has got something else, the X factor (to steal a phrase from elsewhere!)

more people are prepared to pay more money to watch the faster cars.

Some people my dad enjoy the crashes.

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.
Exactly. I don't know why Novak has said this at all however you can't make people watch or be interested in sports events they don't want to see.

"It would be interesting if people paid at the end of each game according to what they thought the game had been worth. Like in some restaurants"

Could we leave anonymous feedback to like in four in a bed?