Should men get more prize money than women at the Grand Slams?

[Bailey01]

Have you got facts to prove otherwise? It should be fairly easy to compare ratings at different times of the day depending on whether it is a men's singles or women's singles match. Attendance cannot be used because the public is forced to watch women's tennis together with men's matches. It is also impossible to apportion sponsorship and advertising dollars.

Have a separate Australian Men's Open and Australian Women's Open and it would be immediately crystal clear which attracts greater attendances, ratings, advertising and sponsorship.

Why is the Women's final played before the Men's Final? The Women's Final is packaged with 3 other finals, so why is it still a cheaper ticket than the Men's Final which is coupled with just the Mixed Doubles Final?

As an argument to compare genders in the same sport, fine, otherwise it's pathetic. Do European soccer players or American NFL players train harder than AFL or NRL players? But they don't get paid the same. They get paid what the market dictates based on all the same criteria that female tennis players do not deserve what male tennis players are paid.

As some may ask to prove that men's tennis is more popular than women's tennis, I'll ask you where is your evidence that what you say is true? Let's look at any era and surmise which would have been more popular. Navratilova vs Evert or McEnroe vs Connors? Graf vs Seles or Agassi vs Sampras? Williams vs Williams or Federer vs Nadal? My opinion is that the men's matches would be more 'popular' than the women's matches by whatever criteria you want to use.

I don't think this is important. I do however think that if the women wanted to gain respect and credibility that they should collectively fight to have the SF and F (maybe QF also) as a best-of-5.

Yer but in 2012 Azarenka beat Sharapova in straights in an hour while Djoker beat Rafa in 5 hr 53 in 5 sets. Does that seem right to you?

 

[red+black]

Yer but in 2012 Azarenka beat Sharapova in straights in an hour while Djoker beat Rafa in 5 hr 53 in 5 sets. Does that seem right to you?

If the public interest was greater for women playing an hour than men playing for 5+ hours, then sure. But it's not, even if they both played 2.5 hours. Women's tennis is missing something by never playing best-of-5. They are rarely challenged, they rarely have to fight past fatigue, they wouldn't know how to spell "second wind".

And re Azarenka vs Sharapova, I'd rather pluck my eyelashes than watch that rubbish. Two women I refuse to watch.

 

[Bailey01]

If the public interest was greater for women playing an hour than men playing for 5+ hours, then sure. But it's not, even if they both played 2.5 hours. Women's tennis is missing something by never playing best-of-5. They are rarely challenged, they rarely have to fight past fatigue, they wouldn't know how to spell "second wind".

And re Azarenka vs Sharapova, I'd rather pluck my eyelashes than watch that rubbish. Two women I refuse to watch.

Yer same just put it on mute

 

[External Inputs]

Attendance cannot be used because the public is forced to watch women's tennis together with men's matches. It is also impossible to apportion sponsorship and advertising dollars.

People go specifically to see the women too, the stands are hardly empty, and low level mens matches aren't well attended either, so your bias is obvious. The top women players make a huge amount from endorsements and sponsorships, so it's not like they're unmarketable.

As an argument to compare genders in the same sport, fine, otherwise it's pathetic. Do European soccer players or American NFL players train harder than AFL or NRL players? But they don't get paid the same. They get paid what the market dictates based on all the same criteria that female tennis players do not deserve what male tennis players are paid.

Isn't that what we're doing? Comparing men and women in the same sport, tennis, a global sport, where they play at the same venues for the same crowd. What do various incomparable domestic football competitions have to do with it? A European League player makes more than a South Sydney one? Duh.

As some may ask to prove that men's tennis is more popular than women's tennis, I'll ask you where is your evidence that what you say is true? Let's look at any era and surmise which would have been more popular. Navratilova vs Evert or McEnroe vs Connors? Graf vs Seles or Agassi vs Sampras? Williams vs Williams or Federer vs Nadal? My opinion is that the men's matches would be more 'popular' than the women's matches by whatever criteria you want to use.

I specifically used the era where they started to slow the courts down, which started in the late nineties. It's common knowledge that improving racket frames and new synthetic strings had pushed speeds up to the point where there wasn't much rallying, and games often went with serve till the tiebreak. Sampras/Ivanisevic in the Wimbledon final is a good example. Not much play means shorter games and less crowd interest, resulting in less money, generally the main reason anything is changed. Women's tennis was actually more popular during that period because their game still resembled what tennis fans wanted to see, a tennis match they recognised rather than a service shoot out.

I don't think this is important. I do however think that if the women wanted to gain respect and credibility that they should collectively argue to have GS SF and F (maybe QF also) as a best-of-5. I still maintain that arguably the best women's match was the 1990 WTA Tour Championship Final in which Seles rallied from 2 sets to 1 down to win in 5. Given that women play women, why are they incapable to play 5 sets? A women's marathon is not shorter because they are women.

Firstly, Grand Slams don't want women to play five sets, they have enough scheduling problems as it is with the mens games, compounded by the inevitable rain delays in the three that aren't held here.

Secondly, although some mens five set matches end up five hour epics, the vast majority are much shorter. It's not uncommon for women's three set matches to go 3 1/2 hours or more, which is all many mens five set matches go for anyway.

Thirdly, most of the lower ranked men would much rather play three sets, as five favours the supremely fit, top ranked players.

Lastly, and most importantly, you should consider female physiology. Women are smaller and lighter than men, and have substantially less muscles, half the upper body muscles of a male. They have smaller hearts, lungs and cardiovascular systems, less oxygen carrying haemoglobin, and they don't sweat as much, so are more prone to overheating.

A season never passes without a number of women retiring from matches because of heat exhaustion, some even collapsing on court. It isn't a fitness issue, they all train very hard these days, they just don't have the endurance a man has, so you can't use a males performance as some sort of yardstick.

The obvious difference between tennis and distance running is you're pacing yourself to make the finish over a know distance you've trained for. I don't see how you can possibly pace yourself in a tennis match to conserve energy, although I have seen men give up on a set to conserve energy for the next, and that's not something I want more of really. Women's cycling events, road races, time trials and velodrome pursuits etc are all held over a shorter distance than their male counterparts, same as biathlons, where the skiing legs are shorter but the shooting content is the same, as women have no problem competing equally when ultimate strength and endurance aren't the defining factor.

 

[red+black]

The top women players make a huge amount from endorsements and sponsorships, so it's not like they're unmarketable.

Yes, some women absolutely have huge marketability. No doubt there.

It's not uncommon for women's three set matches to go 3 1/2 hours or more

Come on mate, let's not talk complete bullshit. It's not uncommon? Really? How many times would that have happened in 2013?

Firstly, Grand Slams don't want women to play five sets, they have enough scheduling problems as it is with the mens games, compounded by the inevitable rain delays in the three that aren't held here.

Most of the lower ranked men would much rather play three sets, as five favours the supremely fit, top ranked players.

You might suggest I am biased and sexist when in fact I have always argued for equality. I've said it before and I will say it again, this is my solution. Equal pay, fine, no problems. Men play best-of-3 in the first and second rounds, then best-of-5. Women play best-of-3 in the first, second, third and fourth rounds, then best-of-5. Much easier on scheduling in the first 4 days. The top men and women, who should be fitter, get the opportunity to play longer matches. Those that are rising through the ranks can work on their fitness as they start to play more best-of-5 set matches.

I don't buy the physiology argument, that's utter BS and I'd say many women would be offended by the suggestion that they are incapable of doing something because they are women. Many sports that have differing lengths for men and women are that way because of history, tradition and sexism. There should be a Women's 1500m freestyle at the Olympics. The Women's heptathlon should be replaced with a Women's decathlon. etc etc

I couldn't care less if some women retire from heat exhaustion. They need to toughen up, just like Djokovic. Perhaps he had an oestrogen imbalance for a while when he kept retiring from matches. Women compete against women. They are capable on playing the occasional best-of-5 match, and those that aren't, should probably lose some body fat.

 

[vaughany]

the old chesnut debate....

 

[red+black]

the old chesnut debate....

kind of like football on Good Friday, which will 100% HAPPEN VERY SOON

 

[External Inputs]

Come on mate, let's not talk complete bullshit. It's not uncommon? Really? How many times would that have happened in 2013?

I watched nothing in 2013 due to being extremely sick, but in 2012, just from memory, there was Wosniacki - Paszek at Wimbledon and Radwanska - Errani at Istanbul. Kerber - Paszek at Eastbourne and Lisicki - Shvedova at the Olympics were both long matches, although I don't have the times and I also don't watch every match played by any means.

You might suggest I am biased and sexist when in fact I have always argued for equality. I've said it before and I will say it again, this is my solution. Equal pay, fine, no problems. Men play best-of-3 in the first and second rounds, then best-of-5. Women play best-of-3 in the first, second, third and fourth rounds, then best-of-5. Much easier on scheduling in the first 4 days. The top men and women, who should be fitter, get the opportunity to play longer matches. Those that are rising through the ranks can work on their fitness as they start to play more best-of-5 set matches.

The problem with your "solution" is that five sets for men is mainly there to help get the top seeds through. Many times one of the top male players has been down two sets in an early round and fought back to win in five. Lower ranked opponents can't often sustain the necessary level for that long. Women's tennis is less predictable, often mentioned as it's a negative, because there's not as much time to come to grips with a difficult opponent, wait till their level starts to drop, or overcome a slow start. It's two sets down, you're out, no more chances.

I don't buy the physiology argument, that's utter BS and I'd say many women would be offended by the suggestion that they are incapable of doing something because they are women. Many sports that have differing lengths for men and women are that way because of history, tradition and sexism. There should be a Women's 1500m freestyle at the Olympics. The Women's heptathlon should be replaced with a Women's decathlon. etc etc

The differing physiology isn't an argument, it's a fact. Search any of the issues I mentioned and you'll find it's true. An inconvenient truth for you maybe, but anyone who works with female athletes will confirm that a different approach is needed because of these differences. To suggest women could match men in elite sport "if they just tried harder" is ignorant in the extreme, they never have despite all that modern sports science can provide, and they never will.

I'm sure you don't care if women collapse and need to be stretchered off the court and default on their match, but I'm sure the players, coaches, organisers and the vast majority of tennis fans don't want to see more of this happening.

I couldn't care less if some women retire from heat exhaustion. They need to toughen up, just like Djokovic. Perhaps he had an oestrogen imbalance for a while when he kept retiring from matches. Women compete against women. They are capable on playing the occasional best-of-5 match, and those that aren't, should probably lose some body fat.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Why is the Women's final played before the Men's Final? The Women's Final is packaged with 3 other finals, so why is it still a cheaper ticket than the Men's Final which is coupled with just the Mixed Doubles Final?

Plus the women's semi finals are also packaged together. The men's semi finals are two completely separate night sessions. Which arrangement makes the organisers more more money, I wonder?

the old chesnut debate....

Yeah, it's sad this is still an issue. Equal prize money for less work and less revenue brought to the table. The female supremacists just won't relent.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Its not less work. The women train as hard as men. just because they are not on court as long as men doesnt mean they do less work. Should Bolt earn less than a marathon runner?? a track or road cyclist??? No, u be laughed off if u proposed that.

and if u got your way and the women played best of 5 sets, most of you guys would still sook about prize money being equal. you would even have a new thing to sook about with the fact that the women would always be on court.

There is no doubt that mens is more popular. look at the difference between ATP and WTA. but having a womens games at Grand Slams adds to the tournament, not lessens it. the organizers have more matches to sell, more content to offer, more big names;a whole new angle to the tournament. without the women, the men may or may not get the same amount of prize money, but there is no doubt in my mind that the tournament would be smaller in structure. the men benefit from having a womens tournament on in the same time.

for me, equal pay is a non-issue. it happens 4 times a year and probably the majority of shared events. the other times, the "market" determines things, and the women dont get as much as men. no-one wants it shared for the whole year. is it really a big deal? the women arent leaching of the men, they are generating a whole new cash flow in these tournaments. i personally think the struggle for players outside the top 200 would be a bigger concern in terms of prize money.

Its just great that tennis is a sport for both sexes; a lot of sports would dream to be in a position where womens event comes close to the mens game. just remember that.

 

[MCG-Unit]

Personally I think it's a dumb argument. We should be celebrating the fact that tennis allows equal opportunities for men and women. No sport comes close.

This. I have no issue with women being paid the same, I would generally rather watch womens' tennis anyday.

Anyway like Good Friday footy, and the New World Order, it will likely happen eventually for Grand Slams.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Its not less work. The women train as hard as men. just because they are not on court as long as men doesnt mean they do less work. Should Bolt earn less than a marathon runner?? a track or road cyclist??? No, u be laughed off if u proposed that.

Of course you'd be laughed off if you proposed that, the Mens 100 metre sprint brings in more revenue then marathon runners by a long way, much like the mens side of the draw in Grand Slams.
How is that at all a relevant comparison?

 

[BobbyMorri]

Of course you'd be laughed off if you proposed that, the Mens 100 metre sprint brings in more revenue then marathon runners by a long way, much like the mens side of the draw in Grand Slams.
How is that at all a relevant comparison?

they both run at different distances. one "works harder" than the other.

A lot of people dont like women getting as much as men due to not playing 5 sets, because they "dont work hard enough, compared to men". If these people thought more work=more prize money, they be outraged at the athletics, or really happy with cycling. As you said, the market determines the prize money, not work. and if u wanted to use $/hour, then the women would only still only lose 5% of total prize money, once u factor in training and media commitments.

the Women dont leach off the men at Grand Slams. It might be a smaller interest(the womens side), but it still part of a grand package of a grand slam. It wouldnt feel the same without them. not many sports are multi sex.

 

[Wallaby]

The WTA have marketed their product brilliantly over the last 30 years or so by producing a 'celebrity' product rather than a sporting one. The players are all presented as TV stars, there is a huge focus on glamour, every top player has 'beauty and style' endorsements from top fashion labels, they appear regularly in fashion parades before major tournaments, and they are standard tabloid magazine fodder regarding boyfriends, heartbreaks, dramas etc.

The fact that they play tennis is a sideline - in the same way that 'Grey's Anatomy' is set in the medical world, so the WTA is set in tennis - but the production and promotion is pretty similar (I don't think the tennis matches are actually fixed or scripted in any way). They still play tennis, there is still a large number of people who are purely interested in the sport. But those people aren't spending all the money of WTA tennis-endorsed products.

There is a huge interest in women's tennis from the celebrity-obsessed part of our society that care little about the actual sport. The money side of things doesn't just come from spectators and TV.

 

[Slippery Pete]

You claimed it was a "fact" that 99 out of 100 see womens tennis as a joke, so surely you can provide the evidence for this.

Or is it you don't understand the meaning of he word?

Don't be a pedant. You know what he means.

If there were two separate Australian Open tournaments, one for the men, and one for the women, which would attract the bigger sponsors, crowds and attention?

Don't bother answering, it's rhetorical. And quite farcical. Womens tennis piggybacks off mens tennis, plays best of three sets, and then after all that, has the nerve to ask for equal prizemoney. Game, set, snatch.

It's quite a "racket."

 

[Slippery Pete]

the Women dont leach off the men at Grand Slams.

And the evidence of this is all those WTA tour events that are screened in prime-time TV slots....

 

[Connoisseur]

And the evidence of this is all those WTA tour events that are screened in prime-time TV slots....

It's really sad when you hear people arguing in favour of WTA 'deserving' equal prize money because it is purely based on self-serving 'femminazi' rubbish that has no basis in anything factual.

This is very reminiscent of so-called 'feminists' constant whinging about the pay gap/disparity that supposedly exists in the workforce.

When it is obvious to any half-wit that the major reason women on average earn less than men is because women are over-represented in fields such as nursing, teaching, child care etc.. areas that don't require the same amount of skill or demand in comparison to say Engineering where men dominate and earn what their skills are deemed to be worth by the labour market.

There's no conspiracy to keep women down and/or in the kitchen. Don't try to guilt trip governments into awarding you tax payers money to the amount you feel you should be paid ( a la nurses and teachers). Just get of your arse and decide on a career that will remunerate you in the manner you feel entitled to.

 

[WeetBixKid]

And the evidence of this is all those WTA tour events that are screened in prime-time TV slots....

If a male player from outside the top 100 makes the final, should he be paid less? He's subsidised by the most popular players just as much as the women are.

 

[Slippery Pete]

If a male player from outside the top 100 makes the final, should he be paid less? He's subsidised by the most popular players just as much as the women are.

Except that he's beaten some of them to get to the final.

 

[WeetBixKid]

Except that he's beaten some of them to get to the final.

It is conceivable to have a player make the final without beating any of the high ranked popular players.

So it's not really about bringing in more money, or working harder but about winning.

 

[Slippery Pete]

It is conceivable to have a player make the final without beating any of the high ranked popular players.

So it's not really about bringing in more money, or working harder but about winning.

Why don't the div 7 Saturday morning fellas get $2.6 mil? They won.

 

[WeetBixKid]

Why don't the div 7 Saturday morning fellas get $2.6 mil? They won.

They're not a part of the Grand Slam.

Pay is not soley based on how much revenue a player brings in, it's not about how hard they work. There's thought experiments we can do to show these claims are inconsistent. The only argument left is that women aren't the very best tennis players.

This is true. But what if in 50 years from now we can make killer tennis robots that easily beat the men and they start playing in Grand Slams. Should they (or maybe the robot creators) get paid more for being the best? For me, being the best human player is pretty awesome and if the WTA wants to celebrate that by giving them equal pay to the robots, I'm all for it.

 

[Slippery Pete]

When your argument mentions the words "killer tennis robots," it might be time to let it go.

 

[Connoisseur]

They're not a part of the Grand Slam.

Pay is not soley based on how much revenue a player brings in, it's not about how hard they work. There's thought experiments we can do to show these claims are inconsistent. The only argument left is that women aren't the very best tennis players.

This is true. But what if in 50 years from now we can make killer tennis robots that easily beat the men and they start playing in Grand Slams. Should they (or maybe the robot creators) get paid more for being the best? For me, being the best human player is pretty awesome and if the WTA wants to celebrate that by giving them equal pay to the robots, I'm all for it.

1. Market forces dictate that professional men are worth more than the women for the simple fact that they are more in demand from tennis fans which is backed by the revenue the mens' tour generates in comparison to the womens' outside of the Grand Slams. And by a huge margin I might add, it's not even close.
2. The standard of men's tennis is of a much higher caliber. With the exception of one or 2 women watching an average professional women's tennis match is akin to watching your average 13, 14 year old boy contest. It's all right but hardly worth lucrative money.

 

[BobbyMorri]

And the evidence of this is all those WTA tour events that are screened in prime-time TV slots....

So that is why Women play on main courts at grand slams unlike doubles, seniors, Juniors or wheelchair tennis.

If women did leech off the main event, they wouldnt get near the centre courts ever. people are willing and happy to pay to watch womens tennis. it may not be the main event all the time, but attendances and ratings would be smaller without them.