Equal Prizemoney...

[LukeParkerno1]

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

Yes, and don't get me started on it. Typical American thing. Every final I say the same thing "please don't go to the Tie Breaker in the 5th"

 

[Teen Wolf]

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!

Venus Williams wrote in this article that "women players would be happy to play five sets in grand slam tournaments". Stop acting like "your" idea (which I do think has merit and could be good for the game) is being held back by the axis of evil female tennis bludgers.

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

I wonder what would happen to the 4 majors if women boycotted tennis for 1 year. Things would just carry on as normal, no repercussions or backlash? I daresay the Australian Open etc aren't too keen to risk it (unless the men forced their hand with an us-or-them ultimatum, which would never happen anyway).

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Venus Williams wrote in this article that "women players would be happy to play five sets in grand slam tournaments". Stop acting like "your" idea (which I do think has merit and could be good for the game) is being held back by the axis of evil female tennis bludgers.

Venus deserves credit for saying that, and good on her.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Number of sets played is irrelevant. If women played 5 sets there would still be fewer people watching on TV, fewer following on social media and fewer willing to pay to buy tickets. In fact there would be what happens at stand alone WTA events which is to say less money than similar stand alone ATP events. There would still be lower interest from business.

The reason why women should not earn as much as men is because their sport is less able to attract interest and thus money. Simple business.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Number of sets played is irrelevant. If women played 5 sets there would still be fewer people watching on TV, fewer following on social media and fewer willing to pay to buy tickets. In fact there would be what happens at stand alone WTA events which is to say less money than similar stand alone ATP events. There would still be lower interest from business.

The reason why women should not earn as much as men is because their sport is less able to attract interest and thus money. Simple business.

And that's absolutely fine when it comes to individual WTA and individual ATP events. If those individual ATP events generate more revenue, then the prize money should reflect that. If the prize money is, for example, 10 per cent of the overall pie, then that slice is going to be more lucrative at tournaments that bring in more cash. That's fine. That's what the market has determined the product is worth and the winner's purse must be commensurate with that.

No one would argue that the world's best female soccer player should, as a matter of course, earn the same amount as Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo. No one would argue that, as a matter of course, the world's best female basketball player should earn the same amount as LeBron James. That's because female soccer players and female basketball players operate under different financial models from their male counterparts, and there is simply less money in their sports, meaning their paychecks are bound to be smaller. That is also true for standalone ATP and WTA events.

But that argument doesn't apply to grand slams, which combine the men's and women's tours. It's a package deal. There's one financial model that applies to both male and female players.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Number of sets played is irrelevant. If women played 5 sets there would still be fewer people watching on TV, fewer following on social media and fewer willing to pay to buy tickets. In fact there would be what happens at stand alone WTA events which is to say less money than similar stand alone ATP events. There would still be lower interest from business.

The reason why women should not earn as much as men is because their sport is less able to attract interest and thus money. Simple business.

Did you watch the end of year championship for the men? Or even the Paris Masters. All major men events but hardly anyone on this forum watched it. Even compare that to Indian Wells, Miami or Rome let alone the grand slams and i feel there is a major difference. but heck i am biased.

anyway, it is a package deal as sweet Jesus says. they both help each other is what i am trying to get at.

btw, they are still not equal in prize money. the men still get a bigger prize pool. the reason for that is because, in the qualifying draw, the men have more entries than the women. The Men are allowed 128 entries, while the women only 96 entries. that is about $320K i think. (10K(?)x32). probably more difference.

 

[gaelictiogar]

And that's absolutely fine when it comes to individual WTA and individual ATP events. If those individual ATP events generate more revenue, then the prize money should reflect that. If the prize money is, for example, 10 per cent of the overall pie, then that slice is going to be more lucrative at tournaments that bring in more cash. That's fine. That's what the market has determined the product is worth and the winner's purse must be commensurate with that.

No one would argue that the world's best female soccer player should, as a matter of course, earn the same amount as Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo. No one would argue that, as a matter of course, the world's best female basketball player should earn the same amount as LeBron James. That's because female soccer players and female basketball players operate under different financial models from their male counterparts, and there is simply less money in their sports, meaning their paychecks are bound to be smaller. That is also true for standalone ATP and WTA events.

But that argument doesn't apply to grand slams, which combine the men's and women's tours. It's a package deal. There's one financial model that applies to both male and female players.

All sensible until you reach the last paragraph where in effect you argue for taxing the men to subsidise the women.

Professional sportsmen earn money only ( only ) because they command an audience and can attract money consequent on tht command of an audience. That is why English Premier League soccer players earn more than say Belgian league players or AFL players.

The ATP tour commands a larger audience ( look at social media and TV ratings ) and thus attracts more money. This reality is seen each and every time the two tours do not coincide.

By all means make the argument for so called equal pay ( miscalled because they are not on a salary ) but its impossible to do so without advocating de facto taxation of one to subsidise the other. It actually amounts to a paternalistic and patronising insulation from financial reality for the women. Its the only major sport in which so called equal pay exists and it only exists because the coincidence of the events makes it possible to argue for cross subsidisation.

 

[Wolfs]

Does it really matter if they get paid the same amount? Does it really affect you? Does it cause the men's tennis players to earn less?

 

[Brad Goodman]

Men's tennis could probably still exist as a professional sport if it was men only. If tennis was only played by women it would probably be played socially and that's about it.

Female tennis players have their male counterparts to thank for getting paid.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

All sensible until you reach the last paragraph where in effect you argue for taxing the men to subsidise the women.

I don't argue that.

I hope you're on very solid ground if you're going to condescend and then dishonestly paraphrase in the same breath.

Professional sportsmen earn money only ( only ) because they command an audience and can attract money consequent on tht command of an audience. That is why English Premier League soccer players earn more than say Belgian league players or AFL players.

Indeed. They are playing in different events under different financial models.

However, that does not apply to grand slam tournaments. Men and women are playing at the same event, where the same financial model is applied to both ie. the singles champion and the overall pool for either gender gets x amount, linked to total tournament revenue.

The ATP tour commands a larger audience ( look at social media and TV ratings ) and thus attracts more money. This reality is seen each and every time the two tours do not coincide.

I don't dispute that. And it's why standalone ATP tournaments may well give a bigger purse to the winner than standalone WTA tournaments.

But that doesn't apply to grand slam tournaments.

By all means make the argument for so called equal pay ( miscalled because they are not on a salary ) but its impossible to do so without advocating de facto taxation of one to subsidise the other. It actually amounts to a paternalistic and patronising insulation from financial reality for the women. Its the only major sport in which so called equal pay exists and it only exists because the coincidence of the events makes it possible to argue for cross subsidisation.

See above.

It's not "equal pay". It's equal prize money. At grand slams, the men's and women's tournaments operate under the same financial model and receive an equal cut of overall revenue. At a grand slam, you have two singles draws and a financial model that applies equally to both.

It's totally unnecessary to talk about taxing or subsidising for the above to be true and defensible. If the men wanted more prize money, would that mean "taxing" the chair umpires? No. It would mean arguing for a greater share of overall revenue, just as the women have, to the point of parity. The men haven't paid any "tax" for this to occur.

I am entirely familiar with the arguments you're making and made them myself for a long time. In general, I accept the logic. My point is that grand slams are the exceptions. Men's tennis is empirically more lucrative, more widely watched and more attractive to sponsors than women's tennis. That is not in dispute. And that is a perfectly good argument if you're explaining why there is more prize money at standalone ATP events than at standalone WTA events. But it doesn't apply to grand slams. At those tournaments, it's a package deal, and both men's and women's draws operate under the same financial model.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Men's tennis could probably still exist as a professional sport if it was men only.

It does. It's called the ATP tour.

If tennis was only played by women it would probably be played socially and that's about it.

Yet the WTA tour exists independently of the ATP.

How is that possible?

Female tennis players have their male counterparts to thank for getting paid.

On the other hand, the grand slams are enriched by having both come together four times a year.

Would Wimbledon really be the same if it was just men or just women?

 

[gaelictiogar]

I don't argue that.

I hope you're on very solid ground if you're going to condescend and then dishonestly paraphrase in the same breath.

Indeed. They are playing in different events under different financial models.

However, that does not apply to grand slam tournaments. Men and women are playing at the same event, where the same financial model is applied to both ie. the singles champion and the overall pool for either gender gets x amount, linked to total tournament revenue.

I don't dispute that. And it's why standalone ATP tournaments may well give a bigger purse to the winner than standalone WTA tournaments.

But that doesn't apply to grand slam tournaments.

See above.

It's not "equal pay". It's equal prize money. At grand slams, the men's and women's tournaments operate under the same financial model and receive an equal cut of overall revenue. At a grand slam, you have two singles draws and a financial model that applies equally to both.

It's totally unnecessary to talk about taxing or subsidising for the above to be true and defensible. If the men wanted more prize money, would that mean "taxing" the chair umpires? No. It would mean arguing for a greater share of overall revenue, just as the women have, to the point of parity. The men haven't paid any "tax" for this to occur.

I am entirely familiar with the arguments you're making and made them myself for a long time. In general, I accept the logic. My point is that grand slams are the exceptions. Men's tennis is empirically more lucrative, more widely watched and more attractive to sponsors than women's tennis. That is not in dispute. And that is a perfectly good argument if you're explaining why there is more prize money at standalone ATP events than at standalone WTA events. But it doesn't apply to grand slams. At those tournaments, it's a package deal, and both men's and women's draws operate under the same financial model.

On a point of interest do you accept that at a slam the majority of the public interest, social media traffic etc is for the men's event and thus the men's event is the main money magnet?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

On a point of interest do you accept that at a slam the majority of the public interest, social media traffic etc is for the men's event and thus the men's event is the main money magnet?

I expect that would be the case.

But ultimately, a grand slam is a package deal.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I expect that would be the case.

But ultimately, a grand slam is a package deal.

You and I meet up and decide to run an event as a package deal for which we sell tickets at $10 a head. We agree to share the proceeds. You are popular in the town and I less so. You sell 100 tix drawing in $1.000. I sell 60 drawing in $600. In the build up people tweet and comment much more about what they expect to see from your act than from mine and naturally you close the show as the headline act. We share the money equally and take home $800 each.


I know in my gut you have put $200 in my pocket and I owe you a drink or two. I might publicly claim to have been equally responsible for the relative success of our show and you may be gentleman enough to avoid public comment contradicting that due to gentlemanly regard for my feelings or to fear of being seen to be a bit of a show off but you know you carried me.

My name is William Trevor Anderson. Initials WTA. Yours is Arthur Terence Potter. Initials ATP.

 

[davis_756]

Comparing women's tennis to men's tennis, one is where the best competitors compete and the other is a handicap division you couldn't pay me to watch.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You and I meet up and decide to run an event as a package deal for which we sell tickets at $10 a head. We agree to share the proceeds. You are popular in the town and I less so. You sell 100 tix drawing in $1.000. I sell 60 drawing in $600. In the build up people tweet and comment much more about what they expect to see from your act than from mine and naturally you close the show as the headline act. We share the money equally and take home $800 each.


I know in my gut you have put $200 in my pocket and I owe you a drink or two. I might publicly claim to have been equally responsible for the relative success of our show and you may be gentleman enough to avoid public comment contradicting that due to gentlemanly regard for my feelings or to fear of being seen to be a bit of a show off but you know you carried me.

My name is William Trevor Anderson. Initials WTA. Yours is Arthur Terence Potter. Initials ATP.

I am not willing to humour this absurd hypothetical.

My arguments have been quite clearly conveyed. I refer you to those.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I am not willing to humour this absurd hypothetical.

My arguments have been quite clearly conveyed. I refer you to those.

It is not hypothetical it is illustrative. It is a simple illustration of the reality of the finances involved....which of course you well know.

Comparing women's tennis to men's tennis, one is where the best competitors compete and the other is a handicap division you couldn't pay me to watch.

Although you put the point with brutal clarity you are of course unarguably correct.

The reason a women's event exists is the same reason a junior or seniors or disabled event exists......because the competitors would be unable to compete otherwise due to sex age or handicap precluding their being competitive in an open championship.

As a competition to find excellence it is wholly worthless since it only exists because the competitors cannot compete against the truly excellent..

 

[Alesana]

Tickets to the Men's final cost more than double the Women's final, yet the prize money was divided evenly. Now I'm no mathematician, but that doesn't sound very equal or fair to me.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Tickets to the Men's final cost more than double the Women's final, yet the prize money was divided evenly. Now I'm no mathematician, but that doesn't sound very equal or fair to me.

Exactly Alesana. The simple truth is that mens tennis is a greater draw and thus a greater money magnet and any "equal pay" or "equal prizemoney" in such circumstances of necessity means transferring money attracted by the men to the women.

It works both ways. It would be absurd to suggest that relatively unknown male models should get the money female supermodels get on Paris catwalks.

 

[BobbyMorri]

1. It is equal prize money at grand slam, in which has mentioned before a million times, is a package deal. As i have mentioned(somewhat jokingly), the actual prize pool for the men and the women is different at a grand slam due to the fact the men have more qualifying spots. Dont see many complaints about that disadvantage?

2. who would you get to replace the 127 matches of singles action the WTA provide. would you make it the top 256 players in round 1. can you name a man outside the top 200?. that is ignoring the doubles and mixed events as well?

3. Serena Willaims prize money for her career, which has spanned longer and as(or more) successful than the 100mil men of Fed and Nole, is only $85 mil. the tours are different and no one is complaining about that. When they share the spotlight fully, then equality is fair. dont give me the shit about hours on court or stupid things like that. At SOME tennis events, both men and women play the same best of 3 sets, yet the men still get paid more.

4. Not everything is about "ability". the 250th man may beat the women in the match but everyone knows who the Williams', Aga Kerber etc are. Plus, any sane fan would prefer to watch an Aga/Kerber match, over a Karlovic match or even Nole v 250th ranked hack(though that last one might be a personal preference). different styles can be fun to watch.

5. And not everything is about marketability as well. if that was the case the qualies, which are free entry, would have much smaller prize pools. someone playing on an outside court in round 1 would not get the same amount as money as someone who played on the main court in round 1. after all, why should Nole share the added money from a CC ticket to others. They came to watch him.

And one more thing.

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.

 

[gaelictiogar]

1. It is equal prize money at grand slam, in which has mentioned before a million times, is a package deal. As i have mentioned(somewhat jokingly), the actual prize pool for the men and the women is different at a grand slam due to the fact the men have more qualifying spots. Dont see many complaints about that disadvantage?

2. who would you get to replace the 127 matches of singles action the WTA provide. would you make it the top 256 players in round 1. can you name a man outside the top 200?. that is ignoring the doubles and mixed events as well?

3. Serena Willaims prize money for her career, which has spanned longer and as(or more) successful than the 100mil men of Fed and Nole, is only $85 mil. the tours are different and no one is complaining about that. When they share the spotlight fully, then equality is fair. dont give me the shit about hours on court or stupid things like that. At SOME tennis events, both men and women play the same best of 3 sets, yet the men still get paid more.

4. Not everything is about "ability". the 250th man may beat the women in the match but everyone knows who the Williams', Aga Kerber etc are. Plus, any sane fan would prefer to watch an Aga/Kerber match, over a Karlovic match or even Nole v 250th ranked hack(though that last one might be a personal preference). different styles can be fun to watch.

5. And not everything is about marketability as well. if that was the case the qualies, which are free entry, would have much smaller prize pools. someone playing on an outside court in round 1 would not get the same amount as money as someone who played on the main court in round 1. after all, why should Nole share the added money from a CC ticket to others. They came to watch him.

And one more thing.

Whilst some of what you say makes sense it is wrong to say as you do that "not everything is about marketability"

In fact marketability ( the ability to attract money ) is the only reason professional sport exists at all.

At the slams the men's event ( more marketable by a mile ) cross subsidises the women. It is possible to argue that there are political or social reasons to justify this and it is possible - though I would not myself - to defend it on those bases but it is simply ignoring reality to pretend it is not the economic reality.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It is not hypothetical it is illustrative. It is a simple illustration of the reality of the finances involved....which of course you well know.

No, it was a hypothetical. And it was not illustrative. It was a bogus analogy that didn't relate to what's being discussed.

You can't just invent a hypothetical to suit your purposes and then say: "Yeah, it's like that."

Why don't you try rebutting the arguments I've made instead of making up stories?

Although you put the point with brutal clarity you are of course unarguably correct.

The reason a women's event exists is the same reason a junior or seniors or disabled event exists......because the competitors would be unable to compete otherwise due to sex age or handicap precluding their being competitive in an open championship.

As a competition to find excellence it is wholly worthless since it only exists because the competitors cannot compete against the truly excellent..

Whatever the merits of women's tennis in general, these arguments do not apply to grand slams, which are package deals.

It works both ways. It would be absurd to suggest that relatively unknown male models should get the money female supermodels get on Paris catwalks.

Another irrelevant non-argument.

Models generally bill by the hour or the day and will bill as much as someone is willing to pay them. This is not how prize money is determined in professional sport. There's no "prize money" for models. Maybe stop offering clumsy analogies that demonstrate nothing.

Whilst some of what you say makes sense it is wrong to say as you do that "not everything is about marketability"

In fact marketability ( the ability to attract money ) is the only reason professional sport exists at all.

At the slams the men's event ( more marketable by a mile ) cross subsidises the women. It is possible to argue that there are political or social reasons to justify this and it is possible - though I would not myself - to defend it on those bases but it is simply ignoring reality to pretend it is not the economic reality.

You continue to ignore the fact that grand slams are a package deal. That is part of their "marketability". You can't then separate out the men's event from the women's event and say "the men's winner deserves x per cent more".

At standalone ATP and standalone WTA events, it's different. If a men's tournament generates more revenue than a women's tournament, then that will rightly be reflected in the winner's purse. But that argument does not apply to grand slams where both draws are combined in one big event. For many years, until I accepted this distinction, I also argued that the men's winner should be paid more than the women's, roughly along the same lines as you have in this thread. And for standalone events, that remains self-evidently true. But not at grand slams.

At some point, to make an intelligent case, you have to address the arguments made against your position. You can't simply keep repeating irrelevant arguments, bogus analogies and hypothetical nonsequiturs.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm no mathematician

Indeed.

 

[gaelictiogar]

No, it was a hypothetical. And it was not illustrative. It was a bogus analogy that didn't relate to what's being discussed.

You can't just invent a hypothetical to suit your purposes and then say: "Yeah, it's like that."

Why don't you try rebutting the arguments I've made instead of making up stories?

Whatever the merits of women's tennis in general, these arguments do not apply to grand slams, which are package deals.

Another irrelevant non-argument.

Models generally bill by the hour or the day and will bill as much as someone is willing to pay them. This is not how prize money is determined in professional sport. There's no "prize money" for models. Maybe stop offering clumsy analogies that demonstrate nothing.

You continue to ignore the fact that grand slams are a package deal. That is part of their "marketability". You can't then separate out the men's event from the women's event and say "the men's winner deserves x per cent more".

At standalone ATP and standalone WTA events, it's different. If a men's tournament generates more revenue than a women's tournament, then that will rightly be reflected in the winner's purse. But that argument does not apply to grand slams where both draws are combined in one big event. For many years, until I accepted this distinction, I also argued that the men's winner should be paid more than the women's, roughly along the same lines as you have in this thread. And for standalone events, that remains self-evidently true. But not at grand slams.

At some point, to make an intelligent case, you have to address the arguments made against your position. You can't simply keep repeating irrelevant arguments, bogus analogies and hypothetical nonsequiturs.

Your point seems to be that because the ladies event is part of an overall "package deal" it should rightly attract the money the mens event does.

Does this apply to the juniors? The Wheelchair? They are part of the package and are handicap divisions unable to attract the money the ATP does........in this they are like the ladies event. Why should an argument for equality in favour of one cross subsidised handicap division not apply to others?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your point seems to be that because the ladies event is part of an overall "package deal" it should rightly attract the money the mens event does.

My point is that, at grand slams, the two elite singles draws are inseparable when it comes to prize money.

Does this apply to the juniors? The Wheelchair? They are part of the package and are handicap divisions unable to attract the money the ATP does........in this they are like the ladies event. Why should an argument for equality in favour of one cross subsidised handicap division not apply to others?

You offer yet another false equivalency. Do you do anything else?

At some point, this becomes a pattern of intellectual dishonesty.

By suggesting women's singles has no greater claim to equal prize money than boys' doubles, you trade in a kind of bullshit equivalency that doesn't stand up for even five seconds. One is the highest level of the sport for half the world's population. The other is not. So there is no equivalence.

Elite singles is the most prestigious, highest level of the game. That is the apex of the sport. And the sport chooses to cultivate and reinforce the top-shelf status of singles play. That is an aesthetic judgement made by the sports' governing bodies. It is not a distinction made along gender lines. So the men's singles and the women's singles are therefore prioritised above the other draws, with parity in gender but not necessarily for every format. We accept uniformly that men's singles is a tier above boys' singles, women's singles above girls' singles etc. That is entirely different to then elevating the elite men's singles draw above the elite women's singles draw when both are the highest level available to players of the respective genders.

I wonder, before you post, do you consider: 'What might be the obvious counterpoints to what I'm about to say?'