Help needed

[LukeParkerno1]

Hi guys, could you guys give me a fraction of a help for this uni topic that I have to do (it is to do with tennis!). Any help, much appreciated.

“In Grand Slam tennis events women play ‘best of three’ sets while men play ‘best of five’. This structural difference cannot be justified now that many tournament organizers offer similar prize money to women as they offer to men”. Critically examine the case for and against. Is the debate over ‘equal pay’ principally about time on the court? How significant, also, is the respective roles of male & female players as entertainers who attract crowds, sponsors, and the media gaze at major tournaments?

Cheers.

 

[red+black]

1/2.

 

[Russian]

Is the debate over ‘equal pay’ principally about time on the court?

They wouldn't be getting equal pay if it was

How significant, also, is the respective roles of male & female players as entertainers who attract crowds, sponsors, and the media gaze at major tournaments?

Not at all significant, they do it just because the feminists and WTA whinge about it. Women's tennis wouldn't exist without men's. Crowds like the men's matches, sponsors only care what the girls look like, they're interested in tennis ability on the men's side. Media do whatever their sponsors tell them to do, but you can't fit as many ads in a 3 set match as you can in a 5 setter.

Now add a few hundred words of padding and you're done

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Cheers Russian, much appreciated

 

[hong_kong_bond]

provide a cost / prizemoney / tv viewership analysis of singular mens tier 1 events vs womens tier 1 events to provide you with some good data to back up your argument...

I posted something about that hear once - from memory, excluding the slams, the Top 10 Mens events combined are 70-80% richer than the Top 10 Womens events

 

[red+black]

I guess my very lame attempt at a joke was a bit obscure.

Maybe compare to other sports, most notably golf, such as crowds, money, etc for men and women.

Compare relative depth of the mens' and womens' events by seeing how many distinct players have won grand slams over the years. Don't forget you need only concern yourself with the Open Era, and probably not even that, maybe just the last 20-25 years

Try these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_Men's_Singles_champions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_Women's_Singles_champions

http://randomratio.blogspot.com/2006/04/do-women-tennis-players-deserve-equal.html
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=300
http://www.minto.net/blogs/archives/148-Equal-prize-money,-equal-dues.html

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

How significant, also, is the respective roles of male & female players as entertainers who attract crowds, sponsors, and the media gaze at major tournaments?

I think that is the bottom line for any professional sport.

It is a given that a sport's prizemoney is a function of how much revenue that sport generates. Agreed?

Ten pin bowling has less prizemoney on offer than golf, because golf generates more revenue.

That revenue comes primarily from TV, sponsorship and attendances.

I think this is all elemtentary. Nothing controversial at all.

So why should women's tennis have the same prizemoney as men's tennis, if the men's side generates more revenue?

It makes no sense to demand equal prizemoney when the pie you're baking just isn't as big. Why do female tennis players deserve a proportionately larger slice of their sport's revenue than their male counterparts?