Remove this Banner Ad

Equal Prizemoney

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

R

red+black

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Jul 12, 2001
37,626
5,476
Melbourne
AFL Club
Gold Coast
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21270356-3162,00.html

ONE of the last bastions of sporting inequality - Wimbledon's prizemoney allocation - is about to crumble. The All England Club, which has offered greater rewards to male players than women for the past 123 years, is poised to follow the Australian Open's equal pay policy.

The crusty home of tennis met this week to discuss prizemoney in the face of withering fire from recent champions Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport.

The Australian Open and the US Open have led the way in the battle for tennis equality, while the French Open employs an ad hoc approach.

Roland Garros offers equal prizemoney -- but only from the quarter-finals onwards.

But Wimbledon has stubbornly resisted calls to follow suit.

Roger Federer last year earned $1.6 million for his fourth successive Wimbledon victory, $74,000 more than Amelie Mauresmo pocketed.

What an absolute crock. Women's tennis sucks balls, but that's not the point. And the differential is just 4.5% :rolleyes:
a) they don't play best of 5
b) they wouldn't get half of what the men get if they didn't play at the same event.

My resolution is this:
1) Men and women play best-of-3 for the first 3 rounds (Week One)
2) Men and women play best-of-5 from the Round of 16 onwards (Week Two)
3) Then pay equal prizemoney
 
I agree - it is a disgrace. If women want the same money, play 5 sets. (By the way, I am female but can't defend the women tennis players)
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The final of the 1990 WTA Championship (Virginia Slim's Championship back then) between Seles and Sabatini went 5 sets and was one of the best matches I've seen. The WTA Championship final was best of 5 sets from 1984-1998, with three of them going the distance. AFAIK the 1990 final is the only instance of a woman coming back from a 2 sets to 1 deficit.

For the record, Seles defeated Sabatini 6-4 5-7 3-6 6-4 6-2.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Disgrace.

Men play for longer and harder, women dont deserve as much. Tommy Haas has every right to complain.
 
xyakks said:
If this will help the Williams sisters buy decent outfits from now on I'm not complaining.
Click to expand...
Shorts and a T-shirt perhaps, just shove Serena in the Mens draw.
 
How many sets they play has almost nothing to do with it. That's like saying the winning of the 1500m should get more than the winner of the 100m at an athletics meet.

It just doesn't work that way with sport. Players are mostly paid according to how much revenue they generate. That means bums on seats, sponsorship pull, advertising, etc. That's why male cricketers or surfers or golfers etc are paid more than their female counterparts - because generally people don't give a flying fruit bat about women's sport.

Women's tennis is at least popular though - albeit not as popular as the mens. Given that the disparity was only 4.5% I find it ridiculous that women players are having a whinge. The old cronies at Wimbledon should have told them to take a big run and jump in a jelly bath.

But what do you expect from dumb arses like the Williams? They actually think they can compete with the men and think that tennis is a racist sport just because few black people take it up.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The women on Channel 7s morning news show were just trying to justify their case. They have no idea.

Let's have a separate Men's Wimbledon and a separate Women's Wimbledon. Then base the prizemoney on corporate interest, attendances and tv ratings.
 
likka said:
Anyone know the prizemoney disparity for events solely on the mens/womens tour?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure there is a hefty difference. No one gives a fig about the WTA. Sure, when the slams come around there's a bit of interest in the perve factor that bridges the gap, but they still aren't worth the same.
 
likka said:
Anyone know the prizemoney disparity for events solely on the mens/womens tour?
Click to expand...
Using the elite level events (excluding Grand Slams) - so the Masters Series events for the Men and the Tier I events for the Women, prizemoney for the men appears to be substantially higher than for the women.

The majority of the Tier I events for the women pay $1.34million US in total prizemoney, the Masters events for the men pay $2.45million US in total prizemoney - same size draws as well.

The only exceptions to this are Indian Wells & Miami - which are concurrent events on both tours. For Indian Wells the prizemoney for the women is raised to $2.1million US - however, the mens is also bumped up...to $3.285million US.

Miami is the only non-Grand Slam top-tier event with prizemoney parity - with both prize pools set at $3.45million US.

Another interesting point is the end-of-season champs for both tours...which are both for the top 8 players. Women's prize pool is $3million US - men divy up $4.45million US.

Make of this what you will - but it appears that what sponsors, TV networks & public attendees are prepared to pay for these events (which ultimately determines what the events can afford to pay in prizes) is substantially lower for women's only events than for men's only...
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

The men would have a counter-claim that they are being underpaid at the majors. If there was $12 million on offer at the Oz, with half going to the men and half to the women, the men could make a case that they should be getting about $8 million of that.

No doubt the chicks will now make a case for 100% parity at the French.
 
bunsen burner said:
How many times does it have to be said that the amount of sets has FA to do with it?
Click to expand...

Of course it does.

Mens tennis is a lot higher quality, and would still be if the women played 5 sets.

The point is that the men do twice the work, but only get the same reward.

Its bollocks
 
fantastic_crows said:
Of course it does.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Mens tennis is a lot higher quality, and would still be if the women played 5 sets.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is it has nothing to do with playing 5 sets?

The point is that the men do twice the work, but only get the same reward.
Click to expand...
But above you are talking quality? Clearly you don't know your arse from your mouth.


ps Sports revenue generation often has little to do with workload. Often sports people's pay is a fn of the revenue. A very simple concept. Not sure why some people don't get it?
 
bunsen burner said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ooo look, I can do it too :rolleyes:

So what you're saying is it has nothing to do with playing 5 sets?
Click to expand...

I said it is a better quality, so they should get paid more for that.

But above you are talking quality? Clearly you don't know your arse from your mouth.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with me arguing both points? They should get paid more FOR THE QUALITY and FOR THE FACT THAT THEY PLAY 5 SETS.
 
fantastic_crows said:
I said it is a better quality, so they should get paid more for that.
Click to expand...
You actually disagreed with my point that 5 sets has little to do with it and then supplied quality as your reasoning. Obviously you're no rocket scientist.

Whats wrong with me arguing both points?
Click to expand...
Becasue on one of them you're wrong.

Disagree?

Should a 3000m runner be paid more than a 100m runner at an athletics meet?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Equal Prizemoney

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top