Remove this Banner Ad

Should men get more prize money than women at the Grand Slams?

Should men get more prize money at the Grand Slams?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Flameboy said:
Yes they should. Joke that the women get the same amount.

Thing is, think someone has said it before in here, that if you took the women out of the draw, there'd hardly be any difference in crowd numbers/attendance. However if you take the men out, there would be AT LEAST a 25% reduction in attendances.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's relevent. let's use a thought experiment ... Federer packs out every one of his matches, gets millions of people to watch on TV but loses the final. In the same tournament, some no name guy manages to actually beat Fed in that very final ... but, until that point, his games were barely watched/attended. It's clear that Federer has brought in significantly more money than the winner.

By your logic Federer deserves to be paid more than the tournament champion! I think this goes against most people's intuition that the winner deserves more than the guy that comes in second.

I think this shows that for starters it's not just men subsidising women, but the big names subsidising everyone, and secondly that there's a strong intuition that pay should be based on results/success rather than just how much money you bring in. So saying that guys should get more money because they bring in more revenue is a pretty weak argument unless you agree that the stars should just get paid more every time regardless of results.
 
The other argument is that guys work harder. Well, we can use this to come up with all sorts of fun conclusions. If it's hard work that matters, should the guy that trains 12 hours a day get more than the guy that trains 6?

Should the guy that plays all of his matches as 5 setters earn more than the guy that gets to the final by only playing 3?

There's no clear cut answer. there will always be discrepencies between effort/success/revenue generation not only between the genders but also within them. so .. who cares. equal pay is not a big deal/more unfair than alternatives.
 
FFS people, men actually do get paid more, its really only at the four slams that it is equal. There was another thread on this issue that explained this, I doubt anyone here will want to go and look for it though:rolleyes: For instance, at the lowest ATP level tournies, the winner takes home close to 100k, at the WTA equivilent the winner takes home approx. 37K. I guess that's irrelevant though because most people discussing this topic hardly know tennis exists outside slam time....
 
hirdy_is_champ said:
FFS people, men actually do get paid more, its really only at the four slams that it is equal.
Click to expand...

"Should men get more prize money than women at the Grand Slams?"

hirdy_is_champ said:
I guess that's irrelevant though because most people discussing this topic hardly know tennis exists outside slam time....
Click to expand...

I guess that's irrelevant though because a certain person discussing this topic didn't look at the thread title.
 
It is incredibly obvious that they should, massive joke that it is not the case.

Men train for longer, play for much longer, produce a better product... yet the pay is equal? SEXIST PIGS !
 
When is the Main Event of something on? At the end. The Men's final signals the end of the tournament (even though the Mixed Doubles Final is on after it).

On Saturday there was the Women's final, Men's Doubles final and Women's Doubles final. On Sunday there was the Men's final and the Mixed Doubles final. I'd be confident that just like the Australian Open, a ticket for Sunday was more expensive than a ticket for Saturday.

I think 75-80% is fair. Even if women played best-of-5 I still don't think I'd support equal pay.
 
Prize money is derived from revenue.
Mens tennis earns more revenue than womans tennis, common sense then men should get more of the prize money.

Just another example of reverse discrimination where woman get more for doing a whole lot less.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

They shouldn't get paid the same but it's nothing to do with playing best of 3 sets.

What the equality lobby don't understand when it comes to sport is that hosting sporting events is a commercial decision.

An example recently, the British equalities minister, Harriet Haman, wrote an open letter to the organiser of the Tour de France saying that there should be a women's event run in conjunction with the 'men's'.

In her world of equal opportunity and fairness she missed the key point, who pays for the whole shebang.

GS tennis is similar, it's funded partly by fans who by tickets but more so by TV rights, the biggest payer is always US television, the economic equation for them is based around what they pay for the rights and then how much they can charge for ad breaks during the tournament. I think a couple of years back it was shown that during the mens USO final advertisers were paying 5 times more for a slot than they were for the women's final, so in effect the men's game is subsidising the women's prizemoney allocation.

This would be seen clearly if they ran GS male and female tournaments separately spaced apart and made them self financing.

This isn't an equality issue but has been hijacked as such. Developed countries have laws in place to make sure that women get paid the same for doing the same job as a man.

That's good.

But what you have in GS tennis is a situation where they're not doing as good a job but getting paid the same, the 100th best male player will earn a fraction of what the number 1 woman player will earn from GS tennis, but he's better at his job than her. She's getting paid more just because she's a woman....which would be illegal in any other field bar sport.

The big white elephant in the room is that whilst it was labelled discriminatory when the men's prize money was bigger and now we have equality......the reality is that there would only be true equality if we got rid of men's and women's tournaments and just played a single competition open to all.

Nobody wants that but the women should have been happy with their lot rather than greedily pushing for pay parity.

I've often wondered what would happen, particularly in Europe with the ECHR, if all the men ranked from about 20 downward went to court to claim gender discrimination, in that they were being paid less than women who were doing the same job to a lower level just because they were men.

Clearly the proponents of equal prize money don't understand the intellectual invalidity of their case, I would like to ask Martina Navratilova and Venus Williams whether they believe that the Wimbledon wheelchair champion should receive the same prize money as the men's and women's champions, you would assume that the answer would be 'no', if you asked them to explain why, all the reasons would be exactly the same as why women shouldn't receive the same as men because it's exactly the same argument, in the workforce in general disabled people can't be discriminated in their pay on the grounds of their disability, this is different though as it is for gender also.
 
Good points Dipper.

I think it should come down to funding, in particular when discussing the commercial aspects. Also, they should also address the ticketing prices, do we pay more to watch a men's final compared to women's?

I don't agree with Venus argument that Wimbledon made her feel like a second rate athlete because she didn't get paid the same as the men. Plus, Venus has earnt a lot of money from sponsors compared to most of the male players.
 
FFS lost what I wrote.

I fully support women's efforts to get equal pay in tennis. That is, I support them doing the intelligent thing and fighting for their own self-interest. I consider myself to be very non-sexist and am completely for equal rights in almost everything. However, I cannot support equal pay for men and women in tennis.

Let's look at this year's Australian Open, specifically the last two days.

Day 13: 4 matches, 368 mins, 549 pts

Day 14: 2 matches, 293 mins, 385 pts

On the Saturday, the Women's Final is complemented with 3 other matches. Patrons see more matches, more points and are at the tennis for longer relative to those who go on Sunday. The Men's final only gets 1 additional match. And Sunday patrons who get less matches and are there for less time pay over 34% more for the privilege.

Someone remind of a valid reason women deserve equal pay. Is the WTA paying equivalent prize money to the ATP at all events? Case closed.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Public Enemy No1 said:
Prize money is derived from revenue.
Mens tennis earns more revenue than womans tennis, common sense then men should get more of the prize money.
Click to expand...

Have you got facts to prove this? We're talking grand slams here.

Personally I think it's a dumb argument. We should be celebrating the fact that tennis allows equal opportunities for men and women. No sport comes close.
 
Dipper said:
They shouldn't get paid the same but it's nothing to do with playing best of 3 sets.

What the equality lobby don't understand when it comes to sport is that hosting sporting events is a commercial decision.

An example recently, the British equalities minister, Harriet Haman, wrote an open letter to the organiser of the Tour de France saying that there should be a women's event run in conjunction with the 'men's'.

In her world of equal opportunity and fairness she missed the key point, who pays for the whole shebang.

GS tennis is similar, it's funded partly by fans who by tickets but more so by TV rights, the biggest payer is always US television, the economic equation for them is based around what they pay for the rights and then how much they can charge for ad breaks during the tournament. I think a couple of years back it was shown that during the mens USO final advertisers were paying 5 times more for a slot than they were for the women's final, so in effect the men's game is subsidising the women's prizemoney allocation.

This would be seen clearly if they ran GS male and female tournaments separately spaced apart and made them self financing.

This isn't an equality issue but has been hijacked as such. Developed countries have laws in place to make sure that women get paid the same for doing the same job as a man.

That's good.

But what you have in GS tennis is a situation where they're not doing as good a job but getting paid the same, the 100th best male player will earn a fraction of what the number 1 woman player will earn from GS tennis, but he's better at his job than her. She's getting paid more just because she's a woman....which would be illegal in any other field bar sport.

The big white elephant in the room is that whilst it was labelled discriminatory when the men's prize money was bigger and now we have equality......the reality is that there would only be true equality if we got rid of men's and women's tournaments and just played a single competition open to all.

Nobody wants that but the women should have been happy with their lot rather than greedily pushing for pay parity.

I've often wondered what would happen, particularly in Europe with the ECHR, if all the men ranked from about 20 downward went to court to claim gender discrimination, in that they were being paid less than women who were doing the same job to a lower level just because they were men.

Clearly the proponents of equal prize money don't understand the intellectual invalidity of their case, I would like to ask Martina Navratilova and Venus Williams whether they believe that the Wimbledon wheelchair champion should receive the same prize money as the men's and women's champions, you would assume that the answer would be 'no', if you asked them to explain why, all the reasons would be exactly the same as why women shouldn't receive the same as men because it's exactly the same argument, in the workforce in general disabled people can't be discriminated in their pay on the grounds of their disability, this is different though as it is for gender also.
Click to expand...

The Olympics are a commercial sporting event. Are you seriously suggesting that women's events, which are either run over a shorter distance or at a slower pace than the comparable men's events, should be paid a lesser amount? The bonuses that countries put up for medals should be less if it's a woman that wins? That the medals themselves be devalued to, say, half, so two women's gold medals would make up one "real" men's gold medal?

You're not happy with Venus getting paid more than the 100th best male player who could probably beat her, because that'd mean she'd be getting more "just because she's a woman", but you're fine with men getting more just because they're men.

Evolution has provided men with many advantages in the strength and endurance areas, and women will never be able to compete equally against them because of this. No matter how hard they train, the gap is much too big to bridge. Despite a woman being highly talented and training as much and for as many years, apparently her net worth will somehow always be less than a mans because she was born the "wrong" sex, and some people still seem to be happy with this inequity.

Your assertion that women are comparable to disabled athletes is just offensive, and trying to dress it up as an intellectual argument is pathetic.

There was a time, over ten years ago, before they slowed the courts down to stop the big servers from dominating the game and turning people away because of the lack of actual play, where the women's game was more popular than the mens because they couldn't dominate on serve the same way. They carried the men over that period, despite being paid less, but some conveniently forget that now.For a while there's been a focus on the big three or four of mens tennis, but that won't last forever. Once Fed, Nadal etc are gone with their many millions of followers, will they be replaced by other men equally popular? Will men's tennis stay as popular just because there's men involved, or will it prove to be that these particular individuals have driven a lot of it?
 
matt_897 said:
Have you got facts to prove this? We're talking grand slams here.

Personally I think it's a dumb argument. We should be celebrating the fact that tennis allows equal opportunities for men and women. No sport comes close.
Click to expand...
Have you got facts to prove otherwise? It should be fairly easy to compare ratings at different times of the day depending on whether it is a men's singles or women's singles match. Attendance cannot be used because the public is forced to watch women's tennis together with men's matches. It is also impossible to apportion sponsorship and advertising dollars.

Have a separate Australian Men's Open and Australian Women's Open and it would be immediately crystal clear which attracts greater attendances, ratings, advertising and sponsorship.

Why is the Women's final played before the Men's Final? The Women's Final is packaged with 3 other finals, so why is it still a cheaper ticket than the Men's Final which is coupled with just the Mixed Doubles Final?
External Inputs said:
Despite a woman being highly talented and training as much and for as many years
Click to expand...
As an argument to compare genders in the same sport, fine, otherwise it's pathetic. Do European soccer players or American NFL players train harder than AFL or NRL players? But they don't get paid the same. They get paid what the market dictates based on all the same criteria that female tennis players do not deserve what male tennis players are paid.
External Inputs said:
There was a time, over ten years ago, before they slowed the courts down to stop the big servers from dominating the game and turning people away because of the lack of actual play, where the women's game was more popular than the mens because they couldn't dominate on serve the same way. They carried the men over that period, despite being paid less, but some conveniently forget that now.For a while there's been a focus on the big three or four of mens tennis, but that won't last forever. Once Fed, Nadal etc are gone with their many millions of followers, will they be replaced by other men equally popular? Will men's tennis stay as popular just because there's men involved, or will it prove to be that these particular individuals have driven a lot of it?
Click to expand...
As some may ask to prove that men's tennis is more popular than women's tennis, I'll ask you where is your evidence that what you say is true? Let's look at any era and surmise which would have been more popular. Navratilova vs Evert or McEnroe vs Connors? Graf vs Seles or Agassi vs Sampras? Williams vs Williams or Federer vs Nadal? My opinion is that the men's matches would be more 'popular' than the women's matches by whatever criteria you want to use.
Bailey01 said:
Yes for sure when they play 5 sets compared to the 3 sets
Click to expand...
I don't think this is important. I do however think that if the women wanted to gain respect and credibility that they should collectively argue to have GS SF and F (maybe QF also) as a best-of-5. I still maintain that arguably the best women's match was the 1990 WTA Tour Championship Final in which Seles rallied from 2 sets to 1 down to win in 5. Given that women play women, why are they incapable to play 5 sets? A women's marathon is not shorter because they are women.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Should men get more prize money than women at the Grand Slams?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top