Equal Prizemoney

[matt_897]

I hate this argument has come up again. I know a lot of people disagree with me but I honestly don't see why it's a problem. Let's celebrate the fact that our sport pays both genders equal, with the amount of sexism and crap females had to deal with over the years why men can't help but get their own ego in the way considering how much money they get paid. Some things are just not worth worrying about.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Novak has now taken back his initial comments about equal pay lol I suppose he didn't like the backlash

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/t...al-pay-serena-williams-andy-murray/index.html

You can't blame him. You simply cannot blaspheme against equality ( an abstract concept that is the nearest thing our culture now has to a God ) and hope to get away with it. Nole made the mistake of saying something which was true but blasphemous. He will have been advised to back off or suffer consequences from sponsors etc. who themselves know he is right but are terrified of inviting the inquisition.

 

[JackNah_8]

You can't blame him. You simply cannot blaspheme against equality ( an abstract concept that is the nearest thing our culture now has to a God ) and hope to get away with it. Nole made the mistake of saying something which was true but blasphemous. He will have been advised to back off or suffer consequences from sponsors etc. who themselves know he is right but are terrified of inviting the inquisition.

I can just imagine his PR and management team telling him to re-phrase his comments lol

 

[gaelictiogar]

I hate this argument has come up again. I know a lot of people disagree with me but I honestly don't see why it's a problem. Let's celebrate the fact that our sport pays both genders equal, with the amount of sexism and crap females had to deal with over the years why men can't help but get their own ego in the way considering how much money they get paid. Some things are just not worth worrying about.

It is easy for you or inded anyone to take moral positions regarding the money others make.

I assume you accept that Fed, Nole etc and the ATP tour in general are cross subsidising female pay at mixed events. That is just an economic reality.

Do you think this weekends AFL players should be similarly taxed to ensure that ladies playing to crowds of 100 people be paid the same and if not why not?

Should NBA pros have to ensure WNBA girls earn equally?

Why should only male tennis players be subject to a tax that makes you feel better simply because their event happens at the same time in the same place as another mush less financially viable event played by others?

 

[gaelictiogar]

I can just imagine his PR and management team telling him to re-phrase his comments lol

As I indicated in an above post mate if I was advising the ATP players I would say the following

" look guys its a tax. Just put up with it. The people who sponsor you want you to pretend to be OK with some of the money they pay you going to the WTA girls - who they also sponsor only for much less LOL !! - in order for us all to pretend they have an equally viable sport and this allows the sponsors tick the inclusivity and diversity boxes. It's what the sponsors and the TV companies want so just suck it up and shut up. OK you are funding the girls but its what the ATP's funders want you to do"

 

[BobbyMorri]

i didnt know you could buy a mens only ticket for a mixed tennis tournament? When you buy a ticket, you buy it for both sexes, as both are playing. Both sexes have the same costs and expenses which need to be covered during the tournament. how would you factor the % the men take compared to women. Without Womens tennis, these events would be poorer.

you are acting like it is the only sport which has equality in its sexes. i am sure Olympic athletes(etc swimmers, runners), get the same amount of coin from governments for completing and running.

 

[matt_897]

It is easy for you or inded anyone to take moral positions regarding the money others make.

I assume you accept that Fed, Nole etc and the ATP tour in general are cross subsidising female pay at mixed events. That is just an economic reality.

Do you think this weekends AFL players should be similarly taxed to ensure that ladies playing to crowds of 100 people be paid the same and if not why not?

Should NBA pros have to ensure WNBA girls earn equally?

Why should only male tennis players be subject to a tax that makes you feel better simply because their event happens at the same time in the same place as another mush less financially viable event played by others?

Those points about AFL and WNBA don't make any sense because they are not paired together or advertised together. Tennis has the distinction of having combined events.

It's not a tax if the players would never see it, you actually think that money would go straight to the male players. It would go elsewhere.

I just don't see the point of the debate. Celebrate it as a win for women's rights and move on, it really doesn't matter for Novak if he makes 2.2 million or 2.5 million, he is downright stupid to make those remarks.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Those points about AFL and WNBA don't make any sense because they are not paired together or advertised together. Tennis has the distinction of having combined events.

It's not a tax if the players would never see it, you actually think that money would go straight to the male players. It would go elsewhere.

I just don't see the point of the debate. Celebrate it as a win for women's rights and move on, it really doesn't matter for Novak if he makes 2.2 million or 2.5 million, he is downright stupid to make those remarks.

You say it doesn't matter to him but clearly it does or he would not have raised the issue.

Not seeing money before it is taxed does not mean it is not taxed.

It is not a victory for anyones rights. None of us have a "right" to money earned by others. Such "rights" are expressions of unearned influence or power rather than moral right. Serena Williams, an adult free agent participating in a relatively poor sporting circuit called the WTA has received millions ( no exaggeration ) based on sponsorship, tix sales and TV viewers earned by players in another relatively richer circuit called the ATP. Does the fact that she is a woman legitimise this?

 

[gaelictiogar]

i didnt know you could buy a mens only ticket for a mixed tennis tournament? When you buy a ticket, you buy it for both sexes, as both are playing. Both sexes have the same costs and expenses which need to be covered during the tournament. how would you factor the % the men take compared to women. Without Womens tennis, these events would be poorer.

you are acting like it is the only sport which has equality in its sexes. i am sure Olympic athletes(etc swimmers, runners), get the same amount of coin from governments for completing and running.

The costs and expenses are irrelevant. Ladies golfers have the costs and expenses of male golfers but are not cross subsidised....and shouldn't be.

Yes you can buy tix to mens finals for instance....they will almost always cost substantially more than the female ones.

How to compute pay? The way one computes all pro sport deals. A mix of ticket sale revenue, ad revenue and sponsorship.

Sponsorship revenue, attendance, TV viewing figures and social media numbers all indicate that the ATP is basically leading on a 2:1 basis.

Without cross subsidy the men would take about 65% of the pot.

I accept there may be legit reason for equalisation ( not being a political believer in egalitarianism I obviously reject them but some do not ) but there is no denying that the ATP members are essentially taxed.

 

[Wolfs]

I don't really care if women get the same money. They are playing the sport at the same level. The US Open women's final sold out quicker than the men's. The women's final in AO was better than the men's.

Like who cares. Just pay them the same. It's their livelihood.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

I just don't see the point of the debate. Celebrate it as a win for women's rights and move on, it really doesn't matter for Novak if he makes 2.2 million or 2.5 million, he is downright stupid to make those remarks.

A win for women's rights? How does being subsidised by the men equal a win for women's rights? Feels totally patronising to me, "There there, you can't attract the money we can, here have some of ours... feel better now?".

 

[matt_897]

A win for women's rights? How does being subsidised by the men equal a win for women's rights? Feels totally patronising to me, "There there, you can't attract the money we can, here have some of ours... feel better now?".

I'm confused by the contradictions of this statement.

 

[BobbyMorri]

The costs and expenses are irrelevant. Ladies golfers have the costs and expenses of male golfers but are not cross subsidised....and shouldn't be.

Yes you can buy tix to mens finals for instance....they will almost always cost substantially more than the female ones.

How to compute pay? The way one computes all pro sport deals. A mix of ticket sale revenue, ad revenue and sponsorship.

Sponsorship revenue, attendance, TV viewing figures and social media numbers all indicate that the ATP is basically leading on a 2:1 basis.

Without cross subsidy the men would take about 65% of the pot.

I accept there may be legit reason for equalisation ( not being a political believer in egalitarianism I obviously reject them but some do not ) but there is no denying that the ATP members are essentially taxed.

If tennis prize money was truly reflective on who drove sales, then Nadal & Goffin wouldn't have made same for reaching IW SFs. Prize money should not be used for these purposes, that is what individual sponsorships are for example. if this was truly a tax, then the players would be taxed on this income as well.

and it is impossible to find a split as any split is unfair. they play at the same event, at the same time, and with the same commitments to the fans. it is a combined event.

 

[gaelictiogar]

If tennis prize money was truly reflective on who drove sales, then Nadal & Goffin wouldn't have made same for reaching IW SFs. Prize money should not be used for these purposes, that is what individual sponsorships are for example. if this was truly a tax, then the players would be taxed on this income as well.

and it is impossible to find a split as any split is unfair. they play at the same event, at the same time, and with the same commitments to the fans. it is a combined event.

Would you argue that male models appearing at the Milan or Paris shows should get the same money as Gisele Bundchen, Miranda Kerr of whoever?

Same events, same catwalks same commitments? Differing financial rewards. Should that be equalised\/

Where do we stop? Should junior, seniors and disabled events at the slams be cross subsidised?

 

[BobbyMorri]

Would you argue that male models appearing at the Milan or Paris shows should get the same money as Gisele Bundchen, Miranda Kerr of whoever?

Same events, same catwalks same commitments? Differing financial rewards. Should that be equalised\/

Where do we stop? Should junior, seniors and disabled events at the slams be cross subsidised?

that is not a sport and completely different. there is no prize money for walking down the runway. that has all to do with appearances fees which has much more in common to sponsorship.

and they already are in some extent. if you were truly consistent, u would demand lower prize money for both them and the lower rounds for every tournament. after all, everyone pays money to watch the Jokers and Feds of the world.

prize money should not be used to just reward the most popular players.

 

[Alesana]

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.

Isn't that like saying a rookie at the Gold Coast Suns should get paid as much as Ablett because he trains just as hard

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Isn't that like saying a rookie at the Gold Coast Suns should get paid as much as Ablett because he trains just as hard

Yes, I hear the 'trains just as hard' argument all the time, for the women's soccer team and the women's cricket team as well. I don't think anyone doubts that they are professional sportspeople and that they train just as hard as any other professional sportspeople but their earnings are based on performance not on training. My brother's band practices just as hard as the Rolling Stones and yet no one will pay to see them play

 

[gaelictiogar]

Yes, I hear the 'trains just as hard' argument all the time, for the women's soccer team and the women's cricket team as well. I don't think anyone doubts that they are professional sprots people and that they train just as hard as any other professional sportspeople but there earnings are based on performance not on training. My brother's band practices just as hard as the Rolling Stones and yet no one will pay to see them play

What decides an athletes income is not training or indeed performance....it is ability to attract money in terms of TV deals match attendance sponsorship etc. The ATP is way ahead of the WTA in terms of money attracted to the sport and in fairness its members should receive that money.

I mean we could have a society where there is rigid equalisation across the board with the income earned by the men being used to pay women the same but why stop at women? Why not subsidise disabled, junior and seniors events as well?

We either allow people earn the money they attract, we tax male sport to impose equalisation or we use general taxation to make up the female/juniors/seniors/disabled shortfall As it is we do the former except in tennis

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

What decides an athletes income is not training or indeed performance....it is ability to attract money in terms of TV deals match attendance sponsorship etc. The ATP is way ahead of the WTA in terms of money attracted to the sport and in fairness its members should receive that money.

Well that is what I meant. The performance of male athletes is generally better than that of females (they run faster, hit harder, kick further and are just generally more impressive spectacle wise). No doubt the female athletes perform their best in many instances but as you say the men's versions of various sports attract better attendances, more TV audiences etc. and, like it or not, this in large part determines what sportspeople are paid. Not all professional sportspeople are paid the same regardless of their gender, simply because the sports are not popular. Was hearing about table tennis the other day and how it is only just a professional sport and only a few players can make a living out of it.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Isn't that like saying a rookie at the Gold Coast Suns should get paid as much as Ablett because he trains just as hard

i will remember that next time someone sooks about the women only having to play 3 sets.

right now, on the Miami open page

Purchase your tickets now to see WTA World #1 Serena Williams during Monday's Day Session!

If your showpiece player on the day session doesnt deserve as much because of her sex, then something is wrong in the world. the gap is not as large as people think.

So, do you all want prize money fixed in terms of how popular a player is. Fed gets X amount, Millman gets Y amount. how far do we go to reward the most popular players, cause after all they are the ones people see.

Seriously, it is for like 8 tournaments a year, where, as seen above, they share the spotlight.

 

[Beavis07]

If your showpiece player on the day session doesnt deserve as much because of her sex, then something is wrong in the world. the gap is not as large as people think.

The Men's draw on that side has no Djokovic, Federer, Nadal or Wawrinka. Murray, Nishikori and Tsonga are the only players inside the top 10 so it's obvious that arguably the greatest ever female player who also happens to be American will be the major drawcard.

fixed in terms of how popular a player is. Fed gets X amount, Millman gets Y amount. how far do we go to reward the most popular players, cause after all they are the ones people see.

Different issues are at play there. You need to enable players such as Millman to make a decent living out of the sport. It builds competitive depth and ensures future stars who will generate millions for the sport aren't lost to another sport. They might not get that investment back on someone like Millman but the next stars of the sport need to see those players such as Millman earning decent coin to know that if they don't make the top 10 they can still earn a reasonable sum of money. It's why I'm not completely opposed to the ATP subsidizing the WTA to some extent but equality of prizemoney is too far particularly at Slams.

 

[Jugada]

No doubt the men should get paid more. They bring in more money so they deserve more. Simple. Its just business

My personal preference to watch is elite men > elite women > other women >>>> other men. But basic statistics show the mens game overall is far more popular and thus brings in more money, so deserves more.

Its not a men vs women thing

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

No doubt the men should get paid more. They bring in more money so they deserve more. Simple. Its just business

My personal preference to watch is elite men > elite women > other women >>>> other men. But basic statistics show the mens game overall is far more popular and thus brings in more money, so deserves more.

Its not a men vs women thing

Mine would be elite men > elite women > other men >>>> other women.

Would be interested on what other people's viewing preferences are.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Elite men>Women>other men

women contests are always interesting, since the serve is less dominant.

hate to re-bring this up, but feel the recent article by the NYT helps makes the point i have been trying to make

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/s...d-slam-majors-wta-atp.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

selected quote.

Although men and women are compensated more comparably in tennis than in any other major sport, the annual prize money paid to the top 100 earners on the WTA and ATP Tours roughly matches the general pay gap in American workplaces, with female tennis players earning 80 cents on each dollar men earn. The median pay gap between a woman in the top 100 and her opposite number on the men’s tour is $120,624.

it is equal pay in 8 events of the year. the rest of the year it is not equal. and this is just prize money. i bet once you take into account sponsorship, the gap is even greater. i think this is the biggest over reaction by a lot of people. they do not get paid the same.

 

[FRUMPY]

For those arguing that women deserve equal pay as men in tennis, take the grand slam equal pay as an example. Now use it in the real world but reverse it:

A man and woman work for the same company and earn the same wage. Now the woman works a minimum of 3 days a week and a maximum of 5 days a week. The man works a minimum of 2 days a week and 3 days a week. Now does that seem fair?