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?

fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/serena-williams-grand-slam-us-open-best-of-five-sets/

Interesting perspective on women playing 5 sets in the 4 grand slams as men do and how it might deal with tedious argument about equal prize money for women despite playing only 3 sets. (Not to forget that men also play only 3 sets in all ATP tournaments, just as the women do in WTA tournaments).

This quote is particularly interesting…

"While women haven’t played best of five since 1998, their Grand Slam matches often go longer than men’s. Twice in the past five years, Francesca Schiavone has beaten Svetlana Kuznetsova in matches that lasted more than three and a half hours; each of their epics was longer than almost all of the men’s matches at the same Slam. I asked Kuznetsova after the second match if she minded playing so much. She said that it provides “more possibilities, more chances.”

So, if length of time on the court and ease of winning is one of the main arguments used against women getting equal pay, the above statement would indicate that there are women's matches that should attract more pay than some of the men's……..

And I'd really like to see a women's Wimbledon final played on a Sunday and men's on a Saturday. I suspect that would even it out more in terms of audiences. :)

Or conduct an experiment with male and female motor racers, where the sex was not known. Then for people to score each race in terms of worth.
I suspect men and women's races wouldn't score much differently, except that men's are given more emphasis.

If men make for more difficult opponents in tennis (or any other sport), is it not reasonable to reward people who compete with them more than those that do not?

I wasn't aware, but according to grimbletart, they don't. :)
Even Serena isn't that dominant.
Would a tennis fan clarify if the top women are less skillful than men?

Or conduct an experiment with male and female motor racers, where the sex was not known. Then for people to score each race in terms of worth.
I suspect men and women's races wouldn't score much differently, except that men's are given more emphasis.

The lower formula and amateur races are much more entertaining and fun than F1 because the skill is lower (imo).
Even the televised stuff. Mistakes lead to overtakes (and crashes).
The "best" racers, don't always make for the best races. Again, in my opinion.

Tell that to Alonso.

I now think Djokovic a a bit of a knob after these comments. Women have been paid the same in tennis for years now, how does it affect him exactly? Don't worry you precious snowflake, we won't make you fight Serena. I know who I'd put money on over ten rounds without a tennis racquet.

I think there are about three or four male tennis players who draw the crowds in the men's game, and similar in the women's.

Yes, I would like to see women players play five sets in the grand slams, but at the moment they don't and they can't unlaterally decide to go on for five sets.

I think there is a difference between skill and ability. Taking something like basketball, you could have all the skill in the world but if your 5'5 it'll be hard to play in the NBA.

I think Professional sports women are just as skilled as their male equivalent but they might not have the same natural ability. Doesn't mean they aren't as good tho.

The thing is in other sports where women aren't paid equally, I would like them to be, but they haven't been playing as long and not as many participate, and there isn't the income generated to pay them as much - as in football. Once there is strength and depth in competition the level of performance goes up- women's football has vastly improved in this regard, some are starting to be paid at a professional level (especially in other countries). There is of course always a biological difference in sports which require strength and speed - which is why it is better to keep men and women separate in such sports. Women footballers are starting to attract larger crowds and yes, Mide I agree with the skill argument.

Also there is another point with footballers - I'd say the male game has a real problem at the top end being paid far too much and with all the money in the game in general and the corruption in the administration of it. I don't want to see this replicated in women's football.

Athletics is another good example like tennis. The women runners may not run quite as fast but really, did people not pay to watch Kelly Holmes in the Olympics or other female big names? Is that not as competitive or as good to watch.

Back to tennis, before her recent drugs test the sponsors clearly thought Maria Sharapova was a massive crowd puller, as are/were the Williams sisters.

LookI'veGotACockovic clearly knows better though.

I mentioned althletics (or at least Olympic sports earlier).
It seems to me the female athletic/olympians get the same level of credit, viewers and fans as the men. As you mention, Kelly Holmes - half the country was cheering her on! Paula Radcliffe also gets a lot of coverage, not to mention the cyclists, rowers, etc. etc.
Men's football is unreal, though. Hideously skewed.

I think it actually helps when women and men are competing at the same time. Not because women ride on the back of men, but it's an uphill struggle to get something to become popular.
It took taking the World Football Championship to the USA to make it more popular among men there. But there were huge financial interests there.

I bet that if at this stage women's tennis and men's tennis ran separately, and were given the same media attention people would give more or less the same importance. (in the UK, it would help to have a good female player competing, though)

I suspect female football would start attracting more similar attention to men's if they were purposely given similar paper inch spaces and tv coverage. I mean, who needs more shows analysing the same goal from 500 different equal angles?
But there is no powerful FIFA investing on it.

I suspect female football would start attracting more similar attention to men's if they were purposely given similar paper inch spaces and tv coverage.
I suspect not.

Do you think so, Derxa? I would imagine after 50 years of equal coverage that people would be as interested in it. Look at all the channels dedicated to men's football, and all the newspaper supplements, specialist magazines etc etc that have been in existence for such a long time. It wouldn't happen in a year or two, as women's football hasn't had that level of interest for that length of time, it would take longer I think. Can you imagine the column inches that would be dedicated to the HABs as well as the WAGs?!

Women's football was immensely popular round the time of WW1 and pulled in larger crowds than men's matches. Then in the 1920s, women were banned from playing on any FA-affiliated pitches, which basically meant all pitches which could accommodate larger crowds. I don't see why we couldn't get back to that sort of level of engagement with women's football if we could have some years where the women's game gets equal treatment to the men's game.

And probably men's egos would survive as well, but it's a risk I'd be willing to take.

Errrr.....

Did he play in the Olympics? You know the games with the world wide audience and no prize money?

Or does he think the women should only be able to get a silver medal?

It will take a lot to equalise women's sport with men's I suspect in terms of recognition. Comments like Djokovic's don't help especially when it doesn't really affect him in real terms and if anything he should be supportive of other professionals in the field.

I guess it's symptomatic of the wider equality in society as a whole. Often we are still not seen as equal.

When I say I'm self employed people automatically think I make cupcakes or something.

The skill level I think in women's sport is on a par it's just the physicality/strength levels which are different. After all you wouldn't say a male fashion designer is less skilled than a female, it's just they may have a different approach due to their gender.

I feel a bit sad that Djokovic doesn't have the balls to stand behind his opinion if that is what he thinks, or argue his case. The Indian Wells guy is already lined up as a fall guy, forced out for having the "wrong" opinion.

My personal opinion on this is that what's really going on here is that a lot of men don't like the idea that a woman should be paid the same for playing a sport that a man could beat her at. I read a bit of that into Djokovics comments, he feels he should get the most, because he could beat any other tennis player in the world, in some people's view, that is what is "fair". Other than SW, there isn't any question that men's tennis attracts far higher viewing figures.

In an attempt to tie two threads together - what do people think of the way that male sporting idols are worshipped by women, in a way that women sporting stars are not by men ? e.g. men's football matches are full of women, the reverse isn't true, there are female tennis fans who follow their idols round the world, i dunno, i just get the impression that it's not the same for men, in that for whatever reason men just do not seem to get fanatical about womens sports in the way they do about mens.

I guess it's symptomatic of the wider equality in society as a whole. Often we are still not seen as equal. The best man is better than the best woman in most sports. That's due to biology.

Saying that the best men are better than the best women in some sports is somewhat like saying that fewer women get to CEOs because men are better. And there is a huge pay gap at this level, as in film, for example. You can't say that the best actor is always better than the best actress.
There are constraining factors in many cases. We've had a recent thread about chess and how women were discouraged from pursuing it as a sport and the ones who did practice tended to play in less competitive women's tournaments, in a vicious circle.

The comment about how women follow male idols and men don't care about female sport is accurate. But we should look at why. We keep celebrating men for manliness and competition achievements, while women are seen as unusually manly and often ugly if they get to the level of physical strength to be top of the game. Women are still meant to be pretty and fragile and the stereotype is being reinforced from childhood with the bloody pink princesses.
I'd like to see the male players comment on the skill level of the female games and support them as equals, not squabble over cash prizes.

Saying that the best men are better than the best women in some sports is somewhat like saying that fewer women get to CEOs because men are better.
No it isn't. Fewer women get to be CEOs because of discrimination and other factors. No woman could outrun Usain Bolt at his peak.

I don't know much about tennis but why don't they make the matches the same length/rules?

I think also that women should be able to qualify for the men's Comp on merit. Why should they compete against women at a lower prize if they can prove themselves to be as good?

I'd also bet that the tickets to a woman's match cost the same as men's? So it's only of lesser value when it suits the sports administrators?

I was bought up on Navratilova and Graff and enjoyed watching them far more than boring old Sampras although I am sure he'd have beaten them in a match.
I agree. The trouble with women's tennis today is that I find it hard to care about any of them apart from Serena.

How do you know men are better? When do they get a chance to prove themselves?

Actually remember this?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)