Equal Prizemoney...

[LukeParkerno1]

Hate to bring up the old chestnut.....

However, it is utterly ridiculous that Nadal gets the same amount for "losing" as Venus does for losing in an hour and a bit.

I'm sorry but I'll be blunt here, give me a reason other than "they can't" as to why all finals (at least from the semi's onwards shouldn't be best of 5, and that includes women. If the women want equal pay, surely they can do the same amount of work.

If they want to do 3/5ths of the work, they should get 3/5ths of what the men get!

 

[Flameboy]

I don't think you'll find anyone that disagrees with this, other than the female tennis players themselves.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Hate to bring up the old chestnut.....

However, it is utterly ridiculous that Nadal gets the same amount for "losing" as Venus does for losing in an hour and a bit.

I'm sorry but I'll be blunt here, give me a reason other than "they can't" as to why all finals (at least from the semi's onwards shouldn't be best of 5, and that includes women. If the women want equal pay, surely they can do the same amount of work.

If they want to do 3/5ths of the work, they should get 3/5ths of what the men get!

It's a grand slam and those are packaged and marketed based on women and men playing alongside each other at the one event. You can't then split them and say the women's title is inherently worth less than the men's title.

In general, when you have the men's tour and the women's tour operating separately, then by all means the prize money should be a function of however much revenue those tournaments generate and the winner's purse is whatever fraction of that cash that comes in. If that translates to less for the women than for the men, so be it. That's what the market has determined the sport is worth, and the prize money should be calibrated accordingly.

But that's not the case in grand slams, which are events where the men's tour and the women's tour come together. As much as I think women's tennis is clearly an inferior, less watchable product, at grand slams they must be given equal weight and that applies to prize money.

 

[bato]

What happens when they have a good final like when Kerber won? "Oh yeah they deserve it now".

Just brings me back to my point on another thread, people like to pick apart matches, view things in the now and completely forget just how good some women's matches have really been.

In terms of endurance and stamina, I still think a two or three setter for women takes the same out of their body as a four or five setter does for a male player.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What happens when they have a good final like when Kerber won? "Oh yeah they deserve it now".

Just brings me back to my point on another thread, people like to pick apart matches, view things in the now and completely forget just how good some women's matches have really been.

In terms of endurance and stamina, I still think a two or three setter for women takes the same out of their body as a four or five setter does for a male player.

I think the most salient criticisms about women's tennis relate to the depth, and also whether some of them are as fit as they should be.

Serena Williams remains at the top of the tree at 35 because she's a serious athlete to the point that it transcends gender. I'm not sure the chasing pack have done enough to match her standards.

 

[Flameboy]

What happens when they have a good final like when Kerber won? "Oh yeah they deserve it now".

Just brings me back to my point on another thread, people like to pick apart matches, view things in the now and completely forget just how good some women's matches have really been.

In terms of endurance and stamina, I still think a two or three setter for women takes the same out of their body as a four or five setter does for a male player.

This is a fairly valid point actually, and tbh a lot of my opinion is based around the fact that the men's game is going through a golden era. Take Federer and Nadal out of the equation and the appeal of any tournament drops. Take Djokovic out and it would drop even further.

Even Federer saying to Nadal tonight - "Tennis needs you".

Maybe just pay these 3 blokes more?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This is a fairly valid point actually, and tbh a lot of my opinion is based around the fact that the Men's game is going through a golden era. Take Federer and Nadal out of the equation and the tournament appeal drops. Take Djokovic out and it drops even further.

Even Federer saying to Nadal tonight - "Tennis needs you".

Maybe just pay these 3 blokes more?

How attractive would women's tennis be if you took out the best 3 players? Or even just Serena Williams?

If you want to talk about the men's game revolving around Federer, Nadal and Djokovic then that's probably even more true of the women's game and Serena.

 

[Flameboy]

How attractive would women's tennis be if you took out the best 3 players? Or even just Serena Williams?

Don't think the drop off would be as dramatic. Sharapova's been gone for the last 12 months and that hasn't really affected things, has it?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Don't think the drop off would be as dramatic. Sharapova's been gone for the last 12 months and that hasn't really affected things, has it?

Because they still had Serena Williams running around.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

What happens when they have a good final like when Kerber won? "Oh yeah they deserve it now".

Just brings me back to my point on another thread, people like to pick apart matches, view things in the now and completely forget just how good some women's matches have really been.

In terms of endurance and stamina, I still think a two or three setter for women takes the same out of their body as a four or five setter does for a male player.

Why couldn't Kerber have won it in 5 anyway? I'm sorry but a good 3 setter isn't the same as a good 5 setter, and how rare is it for any final in the womens to actually go to 3 anyway.

People pay lets just say $150 a ticket- they deserve to see more than an hours worth of tennis.

I don't buy the stamina thing one bit. Training would change for 5 set tennis, but good players will still do well, and i'm not talking about doing the whole tournament- just from the semi finals onward. It doesn't even impact any sessions in a Grand Slam schedule. The semis are a stand alone session and so is the final. This just gives fans value for money rather than seeing Serena flog someone in an hour.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It's a grand slam and those are packaged and marketed based on women and men playing alongside each other at the one event. You can't then split them and say the women's title is inherently worth less than the men's title.

Take out the women from the event and it is still great. There is a reason why on the WTA tour stands are barely full half the time. The ATP tour (especially the top players) fill stands wherever they go.

Play the same amount or you don't get the equal pay.

I'm all for equal pay- but I'd expect them to do the same amount for that payment.

 

[bato]

Why couldn't Kerber have won it in 5 anyway? I'm sorry but a good 3 setter isn't the same as a good 5 setter, and how rare is it for any final in the womens to actually go to 3 anyway.

People pay lets just say $150 a ticket- they deserve to see more than an hours worth of tennis.

I don't buy the stamina thing one bit. Training would change for 5 set tennis, but good players will still do well, and i'm not talking about doing the whole tournament- just from the semi finals onward. It doesn't even impact any sessions in a Grand Slam schedule. The semis are a stand alone session and so is the final. This just gives fans value for money rather than seeing Serena flog someone in an hour.

That's because we've seen players even as fit as Jelena Jankovic and Kuznetsova cramp up and nearly pass out due to exhaustion in their matches at the Aussie Open this year. They couldn't survive three long sets - let alone five gruelling sets. Plus, the quality of tennis would be considerably lower if you asked them to play best of five.

I think my point still stands. The quality in the Kuz Jankovic match was sublime and warrants a good pay cheque. Why those two weren't in the final instead of Serena and Venus is another thing, because I can guarantee if they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

That's because we've seen players even as fit as Jelena Jankovic and Kuznetsova cramp up and nearly pass out due to exhaustion in their matches at the Aussie Open this year. They couldn't survive three long sets - let alone five gruelling sets. Plus, the quality of tennis would be considerably lower if you asked them to play best of five.

I think my point still stands. The quality in the Kuz Jankovic match was sublime and warrants a good pay cheque. Why those two weren't in the final instead of Serena and Venus is another thing, because I can guarantee if they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Did you read my idea? Semi finals onwards. Only asking them to do it twice and that's at most. Probably would be 4 sets. This is meant to be entertainment- why should the crowd pay $150-200 a ticket for an hours worth of play.

Yes the Kuznetsova-Jankovic match was great but still wasn't close to the Nadal semi final.

I'm not asking them to do it every match. If they don't want to that's fine- they should also be "fine" with getting 3/5ths of the payment then.

 

[Underarm]

Did you read my idea? Semi finals onwards. Only asking them to do it twice and that's at most. Probably would be 4 sets. This is meant to be entertainment- why should the crowd pay $150-200 a ticket for an hours worth of play.

Yes the Kuznetsova-Jankovic match was great but still wasn't close to the Nadal semi final.

I'm not asking them to do it every match. If they don't want to that's fine- they should also be "fine" with getting 3/5ths of the payment then.

I would argue that you shouldn't change the Playing conditions mid tournament. 5 set matches would favour some women far more than others and the spectacle wouldn't be improved much.

I would also argue that the women don't train 3/5ths as hard, their gear don't cost 3/5ths as much and their tournament lengths aren't 3/5ths as long.

The right length for a woman's match is 3 sets, and they shouldn't be punished for that.

 

[Demosthenes]

OP argument is ridiculous. Sportspeople are entertainers, they don't get paid by the hour.

If people want to pay the same amount to see the women's final as the men's, then there is no reason they shouldn't get the same cut of the revenue they generate that the men do.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The right length for a woman's match is 3 sets, and they shouldn't be punished for that.

That's fine.

Then they don't get the same amount. It is utterly ridiculous that Nadal who has played probably 10+ hours more on court than the loser of the womens final. At least make SOME difference. Lets be frank it is the mens matches that keep the tournament as it is. Not saying take half their pay away but a little bit is reasonable (even just an increase for themes and keep the women the same)

 

[Underarm]

That's fine.

Then they don't get the same amount. It is utterly ridiculous that Nadal who has played probably 10+ hours more on court than the loser of the womens final. At least make SOME difference. Lets be frank it is the mens matches that keep the tournament as it is. Not saying take half their pay away but a little bit is reasonable (even just an increase for themes and keep the women the same)

So what about my other points? The only difference is the amount of time on court, when, quite rightly, they should be paid based on how many days they have to work until their elimination.

A majority of combined ATP/WTA tour events pay Men extra despite the 3 set format for no other reasons but Sexism.

 

[Milanista28]

If men boycotted tennis for 1 year the 4 majors would go bankrupt.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So what about my other points? The only difference is the amount of time on court, when, quite rightly, they should be paid based on how many days they have to work until their elimination.

A majority of combined ATP/WTA tour events pay Men extra despite the 3 set format for no other reasons but Sexism.

They pay men more because people want to watch that more, simple. Without the men, the crowds would be awful...I mean come on the womens final was still not sold out lol...good luck getting a seat to the mens final though.

The more time on court, the more ads for the networks, the more valuable that match is. Don't see how a 1 hour flogging should be the same as a 4-5 hour match. They should pay the men at least 10% more.

 

[Neese]

STFU

 

[BobbyMorri]

a WTA 3 setter is a lot more taxing than a ATP 3 setter. The reason for this is the serve. How many free points did Fed win last night based on that weapon alone.

Only 2 women have a serve like Feds, who is not even a servebot btw. that is the major difference between the two.

like others said, you cant just pick and choose your match. Kuznetsova loss to Pav after JJ was a direct result of the JJ clash. she was clearly tired and she is one of the fittest players on tour. The JJ-Kutnexsova match went for 3:36 (9-7 in the 3rd). The Fed Nadal match went for 3:37. one was a long 3 set match. the other was 5 sets. and there were 2 other womens matches on the same day(and time) which went for 2 1/2 hours and 3 normal sets)

Elias(1 hour 23 mins) got paid the same as Babos(1 hour and 40 mins in a 2 SET loss). is that fair???? where is the outrage for Elias. prize money due to only work is a flawed process.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Take out the women from the event and it is still great.

It would be a Masters series.

Part of the prestige attached to the grand slams is that the two tours come together.

There is a reason why on the WTA tour stands are barely full half the time. The ATP tour (especially the top players) fill stands wherever they go.

See above.

Play the same amount or you don't get the equal pay.

This is not the reality, though, is it?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Did you read my idea? Semi finals onwards. Only asking them to do it twice and that's at most. Probably would be 4 sets. This is meant to be entertainment- why should the crowd pay $150-200 a ticket for an hours worth of play.

No one is forcing them to buy the ticket.

That's fine.

Then they don't get the same amount. It is utterly ridiculous that Nadal who has played probably 10+ hours more on court than the loser of the womens final. At least make SOME difference. Lets be frank it is the mens matches that keep the tournament as it is. Not saying take half their pay away but a little bit is reasonable (even just an increase for themes and keep the women the same)

It's as though you simply haven't considered the most obvious arguments against your position.

 

[gaelictiogar]

As an indicator of the relative interest levels in WTA and ATP WTA has 547,000 twitter followers. Less than half the 1,140,000 the ATP has.

I could use an army of similar stats revealing the huge gap in public interest between the mens and womens games but no need since everyone knows the WTA is essentially carried financially by the ATP at these big joint events.

That women earn as much as men is a result of a politically motivated subsidy men to women and is what happens when political considerations trump economic ones. If women's slams were independent of men's as EG in golf, the financial rewards would be radically lower, as EG in golf.

 

[Belnakor]

Take out the women from the event and it is still great. There is a reason why on the WTA tour stands are barely full half the time. The ATP tour (especially the top players) fill stands wherever they go.

Play the same amount or you don't get the equal pay.

I'm all for equal pay- but I'd expect them to do the same amount for that payment.

so should the players get paid less for the US open 5th set tiebreaker farce?