Remove this Banner Ad

Equal Prizemoney

  • Thread starter Thread starter red+black
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

bunsen burner said:
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.
Click to expand...

Playing 5 set isnt the only reason they should get paid more, but its part of the reason

Becasue on one of them you're wrong.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Disagree?

Should a 3000m runner be paid more than a 100m runner at an athletics meet?
Click to expand...

Yes. They do more work.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

bunsen burner said:
Should a 3000m runner be paid more than a 100m runner at an athletics meet?
Click to expand...

No they shouldn't, but it's not really comparable as they are different events.

Saying if the men had to run 150m in the 100m when the women only had to run 100m would be more comparable, but wouldn't make sense.

In this case you should only be compared to your peers and as the women want to be seen as on the same level as the men, and thus deserve the same money as the men, they should also play 5 sets.
 
ekzistenz said:
No they shouldn't, but it's not really comparable as they are different events.
Click to expand...

The argument has been that men have a larger physical load than women thus should be paid more. A direct correlation between workload and pay.

It's very relevant.

Added to the fact that sport is about revenue. That is why a 100m runner gets paid more than a 3000m runner and why the ATP pays more than the WTA.

It's about money. Has almost nothing to do with physical output.


In this case you should only be compared to your peers and as the women want to be seen as on the same level as the men, and thus deserve the same money as the men, they should also play 5 sets.
Click to expand...
Tournaments on the ATP consist of 3 set matches.
Tournaments on the WTA consist of 3 set matches.

Are you saying they should have equal prize money?

Now given the prize money is very different I would say that suggests that sportspeople ARE NOT paid on physical effort but rather revenue generated.

Or do you still disagree?
 
Bombers_Forever said:
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)
Click to expand...

Well done for being a girl and having the integrity to say that and not be bound by PC. It is unfair on the men who are the magnet for all the money in the first place.

Compare WTA Tier 1 events when the womens game has to stand alone to TMS events where the men's tour stands alone....no financial comparison. The TMS events never below 3,000,000 $ and the Tier 1 often less than half that.

At the slams the girls link up with the real big money tour and then get half the proceeds. Good luck to them but they are actually leeching off the men and could never attract that sponsorship and income alone. FACT. Truth is womens sport is financially equal to men's only when they link and the girls can piggyback. In sports like golf there is no comparison. Compare WTA money to ATP money outside the slams and the linked up masters.....the WTA can't attractt he money and that tells a story.

Quite simply Roger federer adn Rafa nadal are earning the girls a fortune.
 
By the way Bunsen is right its nothing to do with sets played or physique or speed.

This is PRO sport. It is money talking. ATP attracts more because it is a better product. WTA less because it is inferior. That is the market talking.

Equal pay means the men subsidising the women. Sorry but this is the simple economic truth.
 
bunsen burner said:
The argument has been that men have a larger physical load than women thus should be paid more. A direct correlation between workload and pay.

It's very relevant.

Added to the fact that sport is about revenue. That is why a 100m runner gets paid more than a 3000m runner and why the ATP pays more than the WTA.

It's about money. Has almost nothing to do with physical output.
Click to expand...

Well said.

As soon as sport became commercialised, physical labour no longer dictatated revenue. Instead 'entertainment' was all that was valuable. You could come up with hundreds of examples of inequity in and between various sports. An AFL player is just as much an athelete as anyone else playing professional sport, and yet they get paid peanuts in comparison to other codes. NFL players get paid millions, and they get to wear bloody padding. :eek:

For all we know, increasing female tennis matches could have a negative impact on its popularity. If you play 5 set matches in majors then players like Hingis and Hantachova (sp?) would never beat the Williams and Mauresmos of tennis. Then what? We could be forcing those honeys to retire and leave us with a sport of butches. Is that entertaining? :o

I honestly can't see why we as men have to complain at this so called inequity of player payments. Both men and women get paid plenty. Both men and women get paid enough. None of it is our business to be honest.

If Wimblesdon value its female participants and if they can afford a pay rise, why not give it? Afterall, isn't that how a business works?
 
i think that equal prize money would not be fair to the men, they have to work harder to be fit for those marathon 5 set matches opposed to the 3 sets that the women have to play.
 
red+black said:
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.
Click to expand...



If the grand slam events were seperate for men and woman, we would not have the women whinging about equal pay. Well, definitely not as much.
 
docker_azza said:
If the grand slam events were seperate for men and woman, we would not have the women whinging about equal pay. Well, definitely not as much.
Click to expand...



All WTA events which exist independently of mens events see far smaller purses than the ones which coincide because ATP is the real draw card. money never lies and it gives the people what they want. Which nfinal is last up as the big finale? The mens naturally since the event hangs on the mens tournament.

ATP is subsidising WTA at the Slams and indeed at Indian Wells as well despite the inequality there. Tier 1 WTA events independently of ATP CANNOT attract more than 1,4 million dolllars.
 
bump bump

I am not a supporter of equal prizemoney. Men generate more revenue for the sport via advertising, ratings and attendance. But even disregarding that, women play best of 3 sets and while that continues, I can never support equal pay.

Men run a 42km marathon. So do women. Changes should be made to all sports so that women compete in the same arena as men. Replace the women's heptathlon with a decathlon. Let women swim 1500m at the Olympics. I could go on.

Anyway, now there is discussion that female tennis players should be paid more than their male counterparts :rolleyes:. I mean, FFS, someone is smoking something. Very gracious of Grunter to say that they shouldn't get (even more) greedy. If there was ever a chance that women were to be paid more than men, I would support some form of protest. Maybe men unite and not attend the tennis until such an injustice is corrected.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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...
The third set in the current game (Roddick v some bloke whose name I have no hope of spelling) lasted 66 minutes. Most womens matches last about that long. No way in hell do they deserve equal prize money.
 
Its about exposure, if it were about workload then test cricketers would get more than the players in the new Indian 20Twenty league, but they dont.

Whats sillier is the claims that Women deserve MORE because their matches are closer. You can hardly blame the men for dominating their matches, and if this were introduced it would basically be saying "Hey Roger, drop two sets deliberately every match so that you get more money" which is certainly what we need in the current climate of accusations of tanking in tennis
 
scarecrow2k1 said:
Whats sillier is the claims that Women deserve MORE because their matches are closer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe their argument could be that no woman has ever lost a Grand Slam match 3 sets to love, so women's tennis provides closer matches and therefore they should get more money than the men.

I wouldn't put anything past these overpaid underworked women.
 
The "women's matches are closer" is a bad reason. They have matches that go 6-1 0-6 6-1 because both players are too crap to play a solid 3 sets, and they call it a close match. Also, the difference between the top bracket of women and the 100 bracket is disgracefully large, another reason that the "women's matches are closer" line is wrong.
 
Guys 5 sets and workload have nothing to do with it.

Stand alone WTA events attract less than half the money similar level stand alone ATP events do. Whereas when the link up thepay is equal. Clearly in the linked up events the ATP is subsidising the WTA.

Good luck to the girls but it is a straightforward cashgrab dressed up as political correctness since everyone in the WTA knows there is no way on earth they could attract similar money without effectively piggybacking the men.

The Ladies golfers who have to play stand alone majors for a third of the money the men play for must look on in dismay as the womens tennis play for sums they alone could never hope to attract just because they are linked to the mens circuit unlike the women golfers.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Which means that if you want your little girl to play sport, give her a tennis raquet :thumbsu:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom