Equal Prizemoney

Remove this Banner Ad

red+black said:
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
Click to expand...

I still stand by my suggestion in the original post. This would help with scheduling, would encourage more top players to play doubles, and would mean that seeds playing non-seeds in the 2nd week would have an advantage of having played more best-of-5 matches. Experience in the longer form of the game should be earned by going deep in tournaments.
 
red+black said:
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.
Click to expand...



Good to revive this thread after last night's/this morning's game. Perhaps Venus needs to take a good hard look at herself and seriously ask the question of whether she truely believes that she deserves the same pay cheque after Nadal's win. Absolute disgrace particularly given that the difference in pay was only a small % :thumbsdown:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

swanniez1983 said:
Good to revive this thread after last night's/this morning's game. Perhaps Venus needs to take a good hard look at herself and seriously ask the question of whether she truely believes that she deserves the same pay cheque after Nadal's win. Absolute disgrace particularly given that the difference in pay was only a small % :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Or you could even make a more compelling case for Federer and Serena
 
RobbyRoy said:
Ridiculous discussion this one. There is no reason whatsoever that women should get the same amount of pay.
Click to expand...

Especially considering that just two years ago the pay difference for winning was a mere $74,000 and they still weren't happy :rolleyes:

The pay in women's tennis is the most inflated of any sport in the world.
 
It's fair to say Janko Tipsarevic isn't a fan of equal prizemoney. :D

"99% of male tennis players can't stand women's tennis. There's no other sport with such a big disparity concerning level of play and the money women make. A friend of mine says that a woman who wins a Slam should only earn enough money to pay for her airplane ticket home. Who knows what else I would say if it wasn't for Ana and Jelena whom I may consider friends. But of course, I appreciate the effort they're putting into tennis, because I know they practise as hard as I do. [...] The way women think on court cannot be compared to men. Their only strategy is 'hit the ball where your opponent isn't.' Nothing more! No 'Put more spin on the ball, this is an important point, play to her backhand'. No way! [...] It's that such kind of tennis works today. Look at the Williams sisters, Sharapova or Ivanovic who hits the ball like a truck on steroids. I get a bit critical when I see how much the women earn and how their opening rounds go. That's what irritates me the most, I feel like going to WTA HQ and *something* all of them. Look at Federer who is so dominant, he has to work so hard to beat a Starace or an Almagro, he may even lose a set and then look at Sharapova or Ivanovic who lose 3 games in the first 4 rounds. It makes me sick".
Click to expand...
 
Article from the English Telegraph: Venus Williams does not deserve equal pay

Lot of angry responses from the readers.

In my opinion, given that men's tennis contributes greater sponsorship, more spectators and higher ratings, playing best of 5 is the only way that women could possibly justify equal prizemoney.

Even better, separate the Grand Slam events into men's and women's events, and the women can be paid based on how much advertising and sponsorship revenue they can attract.
 
I love the fact that people think that the solution to having equal prizemoney is to play 5 sets, yet whinge about how much floggings occur in the early rounds...

5 sets = more flogging = less interest in the womens game...
 
BUMP

Of course women do NOT deserve equal prizemoney as things currently stand. I am very disappointed that as far as I am aware, there are no female players that are campaigning for women to play 5 sets. It should be a given that the women's final should be 5 sets.

Given that women spend anywhere from 40-70% of the time on court compared to men, that enables them to supplement their equal pay by playing doubles and possibly even mixed doubles. So the men are getting a really rough deal.

I would like to see, at the slams:
- men and women singles play best-of-3 for the first 3 or 4 rounds, best-of-5 after that
- this would enable more of the top men to play doubles
- men and women doubles play best-of-3 up to and including the QFs, best-of-5 after that
- mixed doubles remains at best-of-3 for all rounds
 
red+black said:
BUMP

Of course women do NOT deserve equal prizemoney as things currently stand. I am very disappointed that as far as I am aware, there are no female players that are campaigning for women to play 5 sets. It should be a given that the women's final should be 5 sets.

Given that women spend anywhere from 40-70% of the time on court compared to men, that enables them to supplement their equal pay by playing doubles and possibly even mixed doubles. So the men are getting a really rough deal.

I would like to see, at the slams:
- men and women singles play best-of-3 for the first 3 or 4 rounds, best-of-5 after that
- this would enable more of the top men to play doubles
- men and women doubles play best-of-3 up to and including the QFs, best-of-5 after that
- mixed doubles remains at best-of-3 for all rounds
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with time on court really red and black.

the WTA and ATP tours are businesses. The ATP is vastly bigger and a vastly bigger magnet for money consequently equality can only exist is the bigger business ( the men ) is taxed to subsidise the smaller ( the women )

Twitter following is a useful little measure. ATP have 914,000 compared to WTA with 417,000.....less than half.

Other indicators will be similar. The men subsidise the women and apart from when piggybacking the men the WTA simply cannot generate big money.

It only happens because the events coincide. Imagine female soccer players earning what Messi does, or golfers what McIlroy does. Economic reality prevents it and would do so as well if ladies events were decoupled from mens.

The men just have to accept it and get on with it. As I said above it is a politically correct tax they just have to suck up.
 
gaelictiogar said:
It has nothing to do with time on court really red and black.
Click to expand...
I know that but it is the only thing that can be changed to even begin to justify equal prizemoney. Each night after the women get down on their knees to thank Lords Nole, Rafa and Fed, I just don't know how the women can sleep at night.

It's bad enough women get paid the same as the men, but given less court time, as I already said, women have more opportunity than men to play doubles and mixed doubles. Serena dominates singles and doubles, no male player even comes close to her earning potential at the slams. Players of both genders should be constantly demanding changes be made until something is done.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

People complain that their is no depth in the top 100 in womens tennis.......that is because they get paid less in sponsorship and Challenger level tennis(ITF), so their are less professional tennis players. In 2013 there were 8874 male professional players [3896 of whom earned no prize money]. In 2013 there were 4862 female professional players [2212 of whom earned no prize money]. those numbers are from http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/about-pro-circuit/pro-circuit-review.aspx.

The work aspect is a cheap way make a point. they both train as hard, and training would take 95% of a pro tennis players time. they both have to travel to a grand slam, pay accommodation, do interviews etc etc. Indeed, at the masters events, they do play exactly the same time, and yet the complaints still come in. it is a lazy argument.

but on that, it is the women in grand slams who get shafted in the draws. they mostly play at day, they have back to back matches for the semi final, and nowadays, they seem to play the latest night match 90% of the time. yes yes, mens is more popular, deserves better coverage on the tellie, i dont think there is much complaining on this point. but my next point is that the tournament directors are very happy with the way it is. it makes scheduling so much easier. i read somewhere that the WTA are happy to explore the option of 5 set tennis. now, that could be the WTA playing politics, but i still think it is fair to assume that their is no pressure from the top to change the status quo.

i heard somewhere that women play a lot of doubles due to shorter match times. nowadays, most of the top top women dont play doubles . I am talking about the Radwanska's, the Haleps and the Kvitova's. Sharapova has never has played doubles. the difference between the doubles tournaments in the WTA and ATP is that their are a lot more specialized mens doubles players. that has a lot to do with how the doubles are played, as well as less money in the WTA than ATP. it is easier for a WTA singles player to do well in doubles than a ATP singles player.

I think a good, stronger WTA tour value adds to a grand slam tournament value. The ATP and WTA arent even. a mens player earns more doing the year than the woman. that is business and economics. but for 6(?) or so events during the year, where the men play the same amount of matches as the women, tennis can show it is a game where both sexes can get paid the same. i cant think of another sport which does that.

I think their is a much bigger issue in terms of prize money. i would love more equal distribution of prize money from the first round of qualifiers to the final.
 
and, this debate continues. Serena isnt happy with Novak's comments:



Serena Williams on Tuesday waded into the tennis sexism row and urged Novak Djokovic to explain to children why male players deserved more money than their female counterparts.

On the day the shamed Indian Wells tournament director Raymond Moore was forced to resign following his remarks at the weekend, when he suggested that women “should get on their knees” and be thankful for the men’s game boosting their own profile, the world No1 Djokovic has now come under severe criticism from two of the biggest names in the game.


“It all boils down to that. I would never put a sex against another sex. I think it’s unfair to compare, we have had so many great women champions and players who have brought such great vision to the sport. There have been great men players too, but women’s tennis is the biggest sport for women – period.

Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ray-novak-djokovic-equal-pay-row-indian-wells



I don't believe Novak was arguing about the difference is sex, and the argument lies between the 3 and 5 sets played and men's tennis attracts more spectators etc. The US Open women's final was a unique situation as Serena was going for a record breaking Grand Slams (equaling Graf's record)
 
Last edited:
red+black said:
I know that but it is the only thing that can be changed to even begin to justify equal prizemoney. Each night after the women get down on their knees to thank Lords Nole, Rafa and Fed, I just don't know how the women can sleep at night.

It's bad enough women get paid the same as the men, but given less court time, as I already said, women have more opportunity than men to play doubles and mixed doubles. Serena dominates singles and doubles, no male player even comes close to her earning potential at the slams. Players of both genders should be constantly demanding changes be made until something is done.
Click to expand...

I do see your point mate but there is precious little market for three set womens games so why suppose there would be a market for much longer ones?

5 set womens games eating into prime TV time would be a disaster because fans would switch off.

The simple economic truth is that the WTA is a smaller, poorer less well regarded and less well supported sport cross subsidised by the ATP.

Arguing that women be paid the same is like arguing that male models be paid what Gisele Bundchen gets considering they walk the same catwalks........blatantly silly.
 
JackNah_8 said:
and, this debate continues. Serena isnt happy with Novak's comments:



Serena Williams on Tuesday waded into the tennis sexism row and urged Novak Djokovic to explain to children why male players deserved more money than their female counterparts.

On the day the shamed Indian Wells tournament director Raymond Moore was forced to resign following his remarks at the weekend, when he suggested that women “should get on their knees” and be thankful for the men’s game boosting their own profile, the world No1 Djokovic has now come under severe criticism from two of the biggest names in the game.

Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ray-novak-djokovic-equal-pay-row-indian-wells
Click to expand...

Perhaps in his answer to Serena's children Nole could suggest that in a civilised world people get to keep what they earn and only parasites argue that taking what others earn is OK.
 
gaelictiogar said:
Perhaps in his answer to Serena's children Nole could suggest that in a civilised world people get to keep what they earn and only parasites argue that taking what others earn is wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I don't agree with her comments in this case. Someone like Novak has done so much for the game in terms of promotion and charity work who always presents a professional and friendly attitude. He is a great ambassador for tennis so I see why he was somewhat critical over the prize money
 
JackNah_8 said:
Exactly, I don't agree with her comments in this case. Someone like Novak has done so much for the game in terms of promotion and charity work who always presents a professional and friendly attitude. He is a great ambassador for tennis.
Click to expand...

Jack the subject only arises because the events coincide.

The mens PGA is vastly bigger than the Ladies PGA and the slams do not coincide. No one thinks to suggest that the PGA players subsidise the LPGA players.

I could list a thousand examples of players who attract bigger money getting bigger money in any pro sport...basketball, baseball, soccer, AFL, NRL etc etc

It is ONLY the coincidence that makes it possible to equalise pay in tennis and it is a blatant cash grab under the cover of "equality".

The leading male players will just have to accept it as an "equalisation tax" and get on with it. After all given that they are the stars the public are interested in sponsorship etc provides them with much greater income than Serena etc.
 
The ATP brings in more money so they should be rewarded accordingly. You can make a strong argument that ATP should subsidize the WTA to some extent but not to the point of equal prizemoney. I don't care how many sets they play. It shouldn't be a measure on how much to pay players and if it was then women are getting the raw end of the deal away from the bigger tournaments. Some of these journalists that are ripping into the ATP are hypocrites. Valid points are being raised (except for Raymond Moore) but those who raise them are being labelled as backwards and neanderthals because they dared to raise the issue. How many of these publications promote the WTA to the same extent as they do with the ATP? I wonder why so many of them don't? I'm sure if you have a top 10 of Anna Kournikovas then the media would be falling over themselves to cover the WTA though. But apparently the ATP is the one with the problem.
 
Beavis07 said:
The ATP brings in more money so they should be rewarded accordingly. You can make a strong argument that ATP should subsidize the WTA to some extent but not to the point of equal prizemoney. I don't care how many sets they play. It shouldn't be a measure on how much to pay players and if it was then women are getting the raw end of the deal away from the bigger tournaments. Some of these journalists that are ripping into the ATP are hypocrites. Valid points are being raised (except for Raymond Moore) but those who raise them are being labelled as backwards and neanderthals because they dared to raise the issue. How many of these publications promote the WTA to the same extent as they do with the ATP? I wonder why so many of them don't? I'm sure if you have a top 10 of Anna Kournikovas then the media would be falling over themselves to cover the WTA though. But apparently the ATP is the one with the problem.
Click to expand...

Very valid points.

Over the weekend we will have more coverage for the ( male ) AFL in 3 days than ladies footy will get in a year and then the same media outlets will criticise Djokovic for stating what is simply true.

Perhaps if the media outlets were subsidising lower selling lower income outlets things would be different. Its easy to be moral about spending someone elses money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top