Equal Prizemoney...

[Jcpdragonx]

Prize money is far too skewed to the upper bracket. Heard from the Tennis SA guy that you need to be top 160ish to breakeven just on prize money.

 

[Alesana]

Prize money is far too skewed to the upper bracket. Heard from the Tennis SA guy that you need to be top 160ish to breakeven just on prize money.

Depends on a few things too, like where you live, if you have a coach. Australia/NZ have it the hardest, due to distance to international tournaments and lack of local tournaments

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm a supporter of equal prize money at Grand Slams, but I have to concede it's hard to promote the women's game looking at the Wimbledon 2017 seedings.

Look at the top four men's seeds: Murray, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic.

Look at the top four women's seeds: Kerber, Halep, Pliskova, Svitolina.

Imagine if they all make the semis, how should the broadcasters put together a pre-match build-up package for the women?

You take Serena Williams out and there's zero star power or charisma in the women's game.

I maintain that equal prize money is non-negotiable but I have to concede that there will be a huge gulf in interest this year.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It isn't just Serena.

Sharapova, Azarenka and Kvitova is just coming back. These are multiple Slam champions. Take 3 multiple Slam champions out of the men's and you would have the same issue.

 

[BobbyMorri]

The Women's side of the french open was fantastic because it was so even at the top.

Stories will develop during the tournament, just like the French. Still, you hope Konta can make it to the 2nd week. having Kiki around for the French really built the atmosphere for the whole ladies side of the draw.

It isn't just Serena.

Sharapova, Azarenka and Kvitova is just coming back. These are multiple Slam champions. Take 3 multiple Slam champions out of the men's and you would have the same issue.

on this. The seeds for this year have won a total of 13 Grand Slam titles together. (Willaims 7, Kvitova 2, Kuznetsova 2, Kerber 2, Mug 1, Ostapenko 1)
Azarenka and Francesca would push this to 16 in the whole draw.

It is not only that. We think Murray as a much better player than his Grand Slam titles suggest because he can beat the top level guys. No one on the womens side has that chance atm.

 

[RupieDupie]

I would argue that the pay should (also) be relative to how competitive the sport* is? Competitive value (as also pointed out by someone here) should improve the viewership and associated income to the sport. Arguably there are shorter formats of games that are actually more enjoyable to watch in comparison to the longer format and I would prefer to pay more money as a viewer to watch the shorter format.

*Sport should be competitive, or alternatively without competition it is not really sport cf Mercedes in Formula One

 

[gaelictiogar]

I'm a supporter of equal prize money at Grand Slams, but I have to concede it's hard to promote the women's game looking at the Wimbledon 2017 seedings.

Look at the top four men's seeds: Murray, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic.

Look at the top four women's seeds: Kerber, Halep, Pliskova, Svitolina.

Imagine if they all make the semis, how should the broadcasters put together a pre-match build-up package for the women?

You take Serena Williams out and there's zero star power or charisma in the women's game.

I maintain that equal prize money is non-negotiable but I have to concede that there will be a huge gulf in interest this year.

So you suppose that the right of a group of people with less drawing power and thus earning power than another group with more have a non negotiable right to have their incomes subsidised by that other group?

That the mens game has more drawing power and consequently more income generating power is indisputable.

Twitter ATP 1,290,000 V WTA 662,000
Insta 921,000 V 478,000
Facebook 2,993,000 V 2,118,000.

Basically the figures reveal that mens tennis as a sport attracts twice as much interest ( and money ) as womens.

The only time we have a right to support cross subsidy is when we are the ones paying.

In truth the only people with a " non negotiable" right to support so called equal prizemoney are the ATP professionals who are paying for it by having the money they generate redistributed to a group with half the earning power. Everyone else ( WTA pros included and indeed especially ) have no rights at all in the matter.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So you suppose that the right of a group of people with less drawing power and thus earning power than another group with more have a non negotiable right to have their incomes subsidised by that other group?

At grand slams, I'd argue both singles draws deserve parity.

Away from grand slams, the men's and women's tours are separate, independent entities. And prize money for each should be dependent on however much revenue they command.

But at the majors, that argument does not apply.

That the mens game has more drawing power and consequently more income generating power is indisputable.

I agree.

And that's why your average ATP tournament will be more lucrative than your average WTA tournament.

But the grand slams are different.

In truth the only people with a " non negotiable" right to support so called equal prizemoney are the ATP professionals who are paying for it by having the money they generate redistributed to a group with half the earning power. Everyone else ( WTA pros included and indeed especially ) have no rights at all in the matter.

Whoever administers the grand slams has the right to set prize money as they see fit.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

It's four tournaments a year where they "work less". And no I don't think athletes in as profitable a sport as tennis should be taking a paycut. Most who aren't at the very top aren't making much to begin with

 

[BobbyMorri]

I wrote a more aggressive response to your grandstanding self righteous rant my friend but will change it and simply say that telling people online that any post is ones last is in truth just sulking.

You found a stat showing the womens game ahead in popularity. Well done. I could find a hundred to show the opposite. Mens tennis is far more popular among the public, sponsors, advertisers and fans than is womens. Tix for the Fed V Cilic final trading at multiples of the price for the Williams Muguruza final.....money talks. Fact.

Or, you could post this junk in here and not pollute the main thread for the Championships, which was my reason for not responding if you read my post. I shouldn't have responded in the first place but you have been begging for an argument for your "grandstanding self-righteous'" for a while (see post below from you a couple of days below)

So, we are treading old water here. I would post this (3rd of Feb this year, on this SAMEish topic)

http://time.com/money/4265912/equal-pay-tennis-djokovic-williams/ said:
In 2015, the U.S. Open women's tournament, which featured a nail-biting showdown between Serena and Venus Williams, sold out more quickly than the men's tournament. In 2013 and 2014, the women's U.S. Open final garnered higher TV ratings than the men's final. In 2005, the Wimbledon final between Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport drew 1 million more viewers than the showdown between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick.

you would respond by saying the same thing you have said on this page previously(ignoring Mr.Thiem, which was the bulk of my last post) and so forth and so forth

But it is pointless to agrue with someone who thinks the womens game is just

Well you were at least watching top class sport, not a pointless hammering in a handicap division of the game.

You must love Andy Murray.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Or, you could post this junk in here and not pollute the main thread for the Championships, which was my reason for not responding if you read my post. I shouldn't have responded in the first place but you have been begging for an argument for your "grandstanding self-righteous'" for a while (see post below from you a couple of days below)

So, we are treading old water here. I would post this (3rd of Feb this year, on this SAMEish topic)


you would respond by saying the same thing you have said on this page previously(ignoring Mr.Thiem, which was the bulk of my last post) and so forth and so forth

But it is pointless to agrue with someone who thinks the womens game is just




You must love Andy Murray.

Well my friend it IS a handicap division though of course I see broader social and political considerations may incline one to suppose that it is discourteous and impolite to point to this unvarnished truth.

Women's tennis exists because the physical limitations of its players prevent them being competitive in an open competition. It is like seniors golf or paralympics etc. Valuable and entertaining and life enhancing in their own right but not elite sport. Garbine Muguruza is not an elite tennis player any more than the boy who won the boys event at Wimbledon......though of course he'd probably beat her !!!!

 

[Daniel Flynn]

1. It's not as entertaining women's
2. It is only maximum 3 sets compared to the men's 5
3. You're on huge money all ready as I've said in other threads you can always get a office job where you make what you earn more in a game then a salary


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[red+black]

Djokovic et al today confirming what we all know. Women do not deserve equal prize money and men are being held back from earning their true worth.

 

[Wolfs]

Djokovic et al today confirming what we all know. Women do not deserve equal prize money and men are being held back from earning their true worth.

Djokovic never really was outspoken about equal pay. So I'm not surprised.

There will be players that agree with him but players like Murray and Federer won't.

 

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Prize money is far too skewed to the upper bracket. Heard from the Tennis SA guy that you need to be top 160ish to breakeven just on prize money.

I read it was top 70. There's an interesting thread started by a pro in the tennis warehouse forum where he talks about the struggle of life as a 'pro', including playing challengers in terrible conditions on courts with no lines marked and holes in the net. I'll try and find it.

Edit: I think this is it
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ut-being-a-professional-tennis-player.442583/

Theres not many other sports that are as popular as tennis where the 160th/70th best player in the world cant make a proper living.

 

[JackNah_8]

NOVAK Djokovic has reportedly stunned the tennis world by demanding a major pay rise for ATP stars and threatening a breakaway players union.

The 30-year-old caught players unaware with the move at a meeting in a Melbourne hotel on Friday, reports the Daily Mail.

Djokovic walked up on stage and asked all non-players to leave the room so he could speak to only current players, then calling for a series of increases in prize money across the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) tour.

The prize money for the Australian Open in 2018 is $55 million, including $4 million for the winners of the Men’s and Women’s Singles tournaments. First round losers receive $60,000.

The Mail’s report also says that tournament boss Craig Tiley told players on Friday at the meeting that the total prize pool for the event would reach $100 million in the coming years.

But Djokovic advocated that the group of around 150 players threaten to create a new players union, separate to the ATP, bringing a lawyer up to discuss the move.

According to the report, world number four Alexander Zverev endorsed the move while world number two Roger Federer does not support the plan.

Djokovic’s career prize money heading into the Australian Open is $US109,805,403 ($AUD138,585,399).

The report suggested that many top male players believe equal prize money for women is limiting their ability to gain pay increases.


https://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis...n/news-story/6034d2a45a9f8f39c40d70d682aea50b

 

[Wolfs]

NOVAK Djokovic has reportedly stunned the tennis world by demanding a major pay rise for ATP stars and threatening a breakaway players union.

The 30-year-old caught players unaware with the move at a meeting in a Melbourne hotel on Friday, reports the Daily Mail.

Djokovic walked up on stage and asked all non-players to leave the room so he could speak to only current players, then calling for a series of increases in prize money across the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) tour.

The prize money for the Australian Open in 2018 is $55 million, including $4 million for the winners of the Men’s and Women’s Singles tournaments. First round losers receive $60,000.

The Mail’s report also says that tournament boss Craig Tiley told players on Friday at the meeting that the total prize pool for the event would reach $100 million in the coming years.

But Djokovic advocated that the group of around 150 players threaten to create a new players union, separate to the ATP, bringing a lawyer up to discuss the move.

According to the report, world number four Alexander Zverev endorsed the move while world number two Roger Federer does not support the plan.

Djokovic’s career prize money heading into the Australian Open is $US109,805,403 ($AUD138,585,399).

The report suggested that many top male players believe equal prize money for women is limiting their ability to gain pay increases.


https://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis...n/news-story/6034d2a45a9f8f39c40d70d682aea50b

Don't think many people will go with this especially cause of the bold.

 

[red+black]

Just compare prizemoney from standalone ATP and WTA events to see if equal prizemoney is justified at joint events.

 

[Pedantic]

Don't think many people will go with this especially cause of the bold.

Depends where you're at. If you're #60 or something it could make a serious impact on your life after tennis and would be very tempting. Someone like Matt Ebden would have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But if you're in the top 10 earning 10s of millions already then I'm not sure the pay bump would be worth the negative PR and media coverage, possible sponsor losses, etc.

 

[Wolfs]

However if this is a ATP/WTA union then I'm for it which might be the case.

 

[Belnakor]

Just compare prizemoney from standalone ATP and WTA events to see if equal prizemoney is justified at joint events.

this has some good analysis.

https://cleaningthelines.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/57-analysing-atp-and-wta-prize-money/

essentially, yes ATP tour has higher money available. The counter point is in the 80s the women's tour was popular. I think there are the odd times when the woman's tour might be more attractive, but on a simple advertising time equation the mens would have to be more profitable.

 

[JackNah_8]

Interesting comments from K Anderson

“Things have got a lot better from where we were four to five years ago. “Now if you are top 100 you are making a good living. I think we want to push that to 150, 200 and keep going. “I can completely understand that guys feel they want more,” Anderson added. “I think we do deserve more. But I also understand the opposite perspective. Our tour is 50 per cent players, 50 per cent tournaments. There are some frustrations and challenges with that but at the same time there’s balances and checks as well. We’ll keep trying to find a solution.”

from Herald Sun

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Interesting comments from K Anderson

“Things have got a lot better from where we were four to five years ago. “Now if you are top 100 you are making a good living. I think we want to push that to 150, 200 and keep going. “I can completely understand that guys feel they want more,” Anderson added. “I think we do deserve more. But I also understand the opposite perspective. Our tour is 50 per cent players, 50 per cent tournaments. There are some frustrations and challenges with that but at the same time there’s balances and checks as well. We’ll keep trying to find a solution.”

from Herald Sun

Seems like there are three competing viewpoints though. Those that want equal pay for men and women, those that want more pay for the male players, and those that want the prize money distributed more evenly amongst the players (I.e. better pay for those lower than top 100).

 

[Acinath]

Depends where you're at. If you're #60 or something it could make a serious impact on your life after tennis and would be very tempting. Someone like Matt Ebden would have nothing to lose and everything to gain. But if you're in the top 10 earning 10s of millions already then I'm not sure the pay bump would be worth the negative PR and media coverage, possible sponsor losses, etc.

Which is quite surprising that Novak is the one to speak up about this.

 

[ozgamer]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/tennis...l/news-story/c1cf93fc4636ae250450f9736cd1672c

“I saw that some of you have written a story that has been a bit exaggerated and you’ve taken things out of context and you’ve portrayed me as someone who is very greedy and asked for more money and asked for a boycott,” Djokovic said.

“I respect your freedom and your decisions to do that but not much of what you wrote is true.

“What happened is that we players just wanted to talk about certain topics — I don’t think there is anything unhealthy about that.

“We wanted to use this opportunity to speak about certain subjects and see how everyone reacts to that and see what opinions are. There were no decisions being made, there was no talk of boycotts or anything like that — that’s all I can say really.”