Can women play 5 set tennis

[Lemma]

Is the prizemoney for other events equal? ie. ATP events vs WTA events?

 

[pepsi]

Is the prizemoney for other events equal? ie. ATP events vs WTA events?

In general no they are not. I think either or both of Indian Wells or Miami have equal prizemoney.

In the ATP and WTA there are basically 3 level of tournaments. Each level has different ranking points and prizemoney.

ATP250, ATP500 and ATP1000 are the 3 levels with the 1000 being the highest.

International, Premier and Premier Events are the 3 WTA levels with Premier Events being the highest.


As a comparison of similar level tournaments:

ATP250 tournament winner114,750 and runner up $60,400
vs
WTA International winner37,000 and runner up $19,000

ATP500 winner295,000 and runner up $133,000
vs
WTA Premier winner: $107,000 and unner up $57,000

ATP1000 (Masters Series) tournament winner620,000 and runner up $304,000
vs
WTA Premier Events winner: $700,000 and runner up $350,000

You will notice that the highest level tournament actually has slightly higher prizemoney for the women. The difference is that there are only 4 'Premier Events' in the WTA compared to 9 'ATP1000' events for the men.

And I notice that some tournaments have slightly higher level of prizemoney, that must be up to the discretion of tournament organisers.

 

[smoovy]

The reality is the 1000th ranked ATP player would probably beat the top ranked women's player.

So taking the sex of the players out of it (which you have to do if you want to talk equality), the question that needs to be asked is why the 1000th ranked players in the world deserve the same money as the top ranked players.

The answer cant be because the tennis is of equal quality, so there must be some other dynamic at play in the women's game that allows it to attract the same amount of money. It is pretty obvious that sex sells and it is why all the butt ugly players on tour should never whinge about their more attractive counterparts receiving special attention.

 

[Bombermania]

Red + Black

I disagree with one of your points for I would not say that most Tennis fans are men. I think Tennis does have a very large women following and if we go by crowd when I went there seemed to be way more women than men there

 

[Bombermania]

In general no they are not. I think either or both of Indian Wells or Miami have equal prizemoney.

In the ATP and WTA there are basically 3 level of tournaments. Each level has different ranking points and prizemoney.

ATP250, ATP500 and ATP1000 are the 3 levels with the 1000 being the highest.

International, Premier and Premier Events are the 3 WTA levels with Premier Events being the highest.


As a comparison of similar level tournaments:

ATP250 tournament winner114,750 and runner up $60,400
vs
WTA International winner37,000 and runner up $19,000

ATP500 winner295,000 and runner up $133,000
vs
WTA Premier winner: $107,000 and unner up $57,000

ATP1000 (Masters Series) tournament winner620,000 and runner up $304,000
vs
WTA Premier Events winner: $700,000 and runner up $350,000

You will notice that the highest level tournament actually has slightly higher prizemoney for the women. The difference is that there are only 4 'Premier Events' in the WTA compared to 9 'ATP1000' events for the men.

And I notice that some tournaments have slightly higher level of prizemoney, that must be up to the discretion of tournament organisers.

On additional point to this very good post, below the main ATP and WTA tour there are events hosted by the ITF that are based on prizemoney amounts

These ITF events are split between several difference money amounts but for the most part the men and women play their ITF events at different locations

 

[Mitchell Madness]

the bigger question is could they sustain the screeching over 5 sets?

 

[jatz14]

Wow, people are harsh.

First, you cannot rate Womens tennis by comparing it to Mens, they are virtually different sports.

Second, you are comparing a great era in Mens tennis to an average era in Womens.

Third, people seem to just like bagging womens sports. If womens tennis had the female equivalent of Federer, Nadal and Djok playing at the moment, people would say the standard was crap, because the same boring base line grunters always win. If its an even contest, with many contenders, its because womens tennis is crap, with no elite players.

Mens and womens tennis both have great matches, and boring one sided yawn fests, and would still do so even at 5 sets.

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

In general no they are not. I think either or both of Indian Wells or Miami have equal prizemoney.

In the ATP and WTA there are basically 3 level of tournaments. Each level has different ranking points and prizemoney.

ATP250, ATP500 and ATP1000 are the 3 levels with the 1000 being the highest.

International, Premier and Premier Events are the 3 WTA levels with Premier Events being the highest.


As a comparison of similar level tournaments:

ATP250 tournament winner114,750 and runner up $60,400
vs
WTA International winner37,000 and runner up $19,000

ATP500 winner295,000 and runner up $133,000
vs
WTA Premier winner: $107,000 and unner up $57,000

ATP1000 (Masters Series) tournament winner620,000 and runner up $304,000
vs
WTA Premier Events winner: $700,000 and runner up $350,000

You will notice that the highest level tournament actually has slightly higher prizemoney for the women. The difference is that there are only 4 'Premier Events' in the WTA compared to 9 'ATP1000' events for the men.

And I notice that some tournaments have slightly higher level of prizemoney, that must be up to the discretion of tournament organisers.

Precisely why I maintain that this issue is made out to be bigger than it really is. Not to mention, its up to the tournament directors to decide whether or not the women play 5 sets.

I don't know how to multiquote, so this is for Red and Black;
Most of the men related to me actually have no interest in sport. Apart from my brother, my sister and myself are way more interested than all of them. I think you're making a bit of a generalisation. Aussie Rules is a prime example I think where there are as many women as there are men in the crowd.

In relation to your point about women's tennis not being of the same demand, you obviously have a point and one could argue they actually don't get as much money for that reason, as demonstrated by Pepsi.

Women's tennis is a fraud? What because they can't play to the same standard as men? Of course they can't, blokes are stronger, they didn't determine this, what do you expect? Fair enough, you don't have to like it or watch it, but it doesn't make it fraud, you can appreciate it for what it is.

This is why I say its the tip of the iceberg, for four tournanents out of god knows how many, the women receive equal prize money.

Anyway I completely respect your opinion, and you have a point in principle, but its really not much of an issue.

 

[gaelictiogar]

The ONLY reason why the womens event is afforded the status it is is that it coincides with the mens. Separate them as in Golf and they would disappear off the radar. Political Correctness demands they are paid equallly.....good for the girls who benefit. Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal have put millions into their accounts.

Its bad enough having a low interest piggybacking event taking up time with 3 setters.....5 setters would be an absurd waste of time annoying fans and further disturbing the scheduling of the Mens event which is THE event. Its a complete non starter.

 

[TheStinger]

How can the women demand and indeed get equal prizemoney for their tournament when Djokovic spent more time on court in his semi and final than Azagrunter did in her entire tournament?

 

[gaelictiogar]

How can the women demand and indeed get equal prizemoney for their tournament when Djokovic spent more time on court in his semi and final than Azagrunter did in her entire tournament?

Because the answer lies in political correctness rather than in the income generated or interest in the event.

Tennis is a sport in which the womens game can piggyback the mens so they can get the money under cover of equality. In all other big money internationally popular sports with male and female pro tours or leagues, golf, soccer, basketball etc the major womens events are financially tiny compared to the mens because they are separate.

Womens tennis is different and benefits accordingly. Paying them equally is absurd from fairness and marketing perspectives but its politics.

 

[Dr Awkward]

The amount of sets they play is irrelevant. What is relevant is the quality of the overall product. In most aspects of life you get paid for the quality of your product/service. The womens game is a far inferior quality of product that rates lower on tv, draws less crowds, and less sponsorship. Therefore they deserve to be paid less. No need to even talk about how many sets they play.

Even if women played 5 and men played 3, men would still deserve to be paid more because we would still be watching a Novak v Nadal 3 setter over a Sharapova v Azarenka 5 setter.

 

[red+black]

Does anyone know the (average) ratings for the two singles finals?

EDIT: found it

Saturday: http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/01/saturday-28-january-2012.html
Sunday: http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/01/sunday-29-january-2012.html

 

[ari_gold99]

Actually the background to the whole equal pay debate is important. It came around in the early to mid 2000s when the women's game was in fantastic shape with the Williams sisters, Clijsters and Henin - some really great rivalries. Women's tennis crowd and sponsorship figures were excellent and the popularity was exceeding the men's game (though query whether this translated into more revenue - I doubt it).

The women's game is now probably in the worst state it has ever been in - but that will change in the next few years as Azarenka, Kvitova and Sharapova establish solid new rivalries.

I don't think you look at it as men play 5 sets so must women - I think it is a revenue thing. On the revenue figures women would be lucky to be paid 70% of the men these days. That will change again though as eras and players change.

 

[XFactor1979]

To quote a quizmeister:
Women's tennis is not sport!

It was a very long time ago (Margaret Court 24 grand slam wins! FTW! pure pwnage!) but nowadays most the women who play are supermodels who have modelling contracts off the court

One doesnt have to pay 60 bucks to see fit girls for an hour and a half! theres a place called: the gym

And dont even mention the ridiculous grunting that goes on!

 

[gaelictiogar]

Is the prizemoney for other events equal? ie. ATP events vs WTA events?

ATP events attract more money. Indeed the ATP part of the majors attracts more advertising etc as well which is then appropriated to pay the girls.

The ladies tour only earns equal money when piggybacking the ATP. At dual events the pay is equal. At WTA stand alones the pay is much less.

At the very top in slams etc WTA is a parasite on the ATP with the likes of Serena Williams, Azarenka, Clijsters etc having fewer than 10% of facebook followers of the likes of Federer Nadal, Murray and that is a great test of popularity.

Sharapova is something of an exception but her popularity is not so much a tennis thing and is based rather on the curious and to me bizarre notion that she is a sexpot. Remove her and the top 10 ladies havea fraction of the facebook likes of the men.

 

[External Inputs]

ATP events attract more money. Indeed the ATP part of the majors attracts more advertising etc as well which is then appropriated to pay the girls.

The ladies tour only earns equal money when piggybacking the ATP. At dual events the pay is equal. At WTA stand alones the pay is much less.

At the very top in slams etc WTA is a parasite on the ATP with the likes of Serena Williams, Azarenka, Clijsters etc having fewer than 10% of facebook followers of the likes of Federer Nadal, Murray and that is a great test of popularity.

Sharapova is something of an exception but her popularity is not so much a tennis thing and is based rather on the curious and to me bizarre notion that she is a sexpot. Remove her and the top 10 ladies havea fraction of the facebook likes of the men.

How big footy of you, as if facebook is somehow the ultimate measure of popularity now, and then, even using that, you somehow discount Sharapova as "an exception" because it doesn't suit your argument. 116 million Chinese watched Li Na win the French Open last year, yet what's her critical facebook like status? Only 63,000? Yet apparently she got 30 million dollars in endorsements this year, toping Sharapova's 25 mil. Is that a true test of popularity, or do you thing it's because she's a "sexpot" too?

 

[AM]

Yes they can. And if they want equal prizemoney, they should.

 

[Gift]

Yes they can. And if they want equal prizemoney, they should.

Nah its the other way around. Grand slams pay them more so that they dont play 5 sets