Wimbledon price money

[Monts]

Why do the women get the same prize money as the men?

http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/guide/prizemoney.html

They only have to play 3 fifths of the games the men have to play...

[Killiehibbie]

Why do the women get the same prize money as the men?

http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/guide/prizemoney.html

They only have to play 3 fifths of the games the men have to play...

Equality? IMO that means men are being discriminated against by having to do more to get the same reward as women.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Why do the women get the same prize money as the men?

http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/guide/prizemoney.html

They only have to play 3 fifths of the games the men have to play...


It also costs more to get in to watch the men’s final than it does the women’s final. Why should there be any difference?

The men should get more because the standard’s better – the best woman player in the world couldn’t beat the 100th best man.

At the end of the day the woman stamped their feet for long enough and got their own way – us men need to take a leaf out of their book.

[Sergio sledge]

Why do the women get the same prize money as the men?

http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/guide/prizemoney.html

They only have to play 3 fifths of the games the men have to play...

:tsk tsk: Don't you know that its because the women are weaker, less fit, slower and less intelligent than their male counterparts, consequently, they have to work a whole lot harder to win their matches than the men do (sport comes naturally the men) and therefore they deserve more money than the men for what they do.

[Tomsk]

Is there anyone here who would cross the road, never mind pay, to watch a women's game of tennis? Or, even worse, a women's game of football?

[RoslinInstHibby]

Is there anyone here who would cross the road, never mind pay, to watch a women's game of tennis? Or, even worse, a women's game of football?

womens tennis = blind mans porn:greengrin

[J-C]

Probably all the extra groaning and grunting they do.

[Dashing Bob S]

The centre court fillys in their frilly's are worth every penny. Its a shame they get eliminated early doors by the bulldozers. They should screen women's tennis in reverse from the final backwards.

[Monts]

The centre court fillys in their frilly's are worth every penny. Its a shame they get eliminated early doors by the bulldozers. They should screen women's tennis in reverse from the final backwards.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/wimbledon-ditches-rules-in-bid-to-keep-munters-off-centre-court-200906301865/

[GhostofBolivar]

Is there anyone here who would cross the road, never mind pay, to watch a women's game of tennis? Or, even worse, a women's game of football?


I would.

[Hank Schrader]

Why do the women get the same prize money as the men?

http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/guide/prizemoney.html

They only have to play 3 fifths of the games the men have to play...

:stirrer: :greengrin

[Sergio sledge]

Is there anyone here who would cross the road, never mind pay, to watch a women's game of tennis? Or, even worse, a women's game of football?

If it was Ana Ivanovic (http://media.photobucket.com/image/ana%20ivanovic/BroK5/ana.jpg) vs Maria Sharapova (http://www.vtennis.co.uk/Images/Tennis/Maria-Sharapova/maria-sharapova-modeling-pictures/maria-sharapova-modeling-pictures.JPG) I would..... :wink:

[Killiehibbie]

A better idea would be to make it an all in tournament and see how many women even got past the 1st round.

[Woody1985]

A better idea would be to make it an all in tournament and see how many women even got past the 1st round.

That would probably make it too equal for them.

Men are the attraction (tennis wise) at Wimbledon (and play more sets) and should therefore be paid more.

Do woman footballers command 100/200k a week for their talent and ability. No, because it's not there and there is not much interest.

The only times I've watched a womens game / final is when the williams sisters were playing.

[lapsedhibee]

:tsk tsk: Don't you know that its because the women are weaker, less fit, slower and less intelligent than their male counterparts, consequently, they have to work a whole lot harder to win their matches than the men do (sport comes naturally the men) and therefore they deserve more money than the men for what they do.

While all that you've said is perfectly true, the nub of it is that the wimmin do in fact have to work harder - not just to win but to take part at all. Wimmin are on average far littler than men yet they are expected to play on exactly the same court as men. Obviously they need to expend far more energy, relatively speaking, to (say) get the ball over what is a proportionately much higher net. This unfairness is what causes the excessive grunting in wimmin's tennis. I am surprised that The PC Brigade hasn't demanded separate, smaller courts with lower nets for wimmin's matches. Mibbe next year they could have roll-on roll-off alternative courts, since the new roof has proved a success.

[Sir David Gray]

Women should be paid the same at every tournament, except for the Grand Slams. The men play best of five sets, whereas the women only play best of three.

The male winner of Wimbledon potentially has to play 35 sets, whereas the maximum that the female winner will have to play is 21.

Men's tennis, IMO, is also far superior to the women's game. The only women's match that even comes close to a men's match is when the Williams sisters play one another.

If you compare the amount of time that the men have spent on court to how long the women have played for, you can clearly see the difference.

All of the male quarter finalists have spent around 9 hours on court so far, whereas the four remaining women have got to the semis having played just 5 hours of tennis, with the exception of Safina.

The men should be paid more than the women during the four Grand Slam events.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Is there anyone here who would cross the road, never mind pay, to watch a women's game of tennis? Or, even worse, a women's game of football?

No. I watched 5 minutes of Serena Williams v somebody else yesterday and had to switch off – it was a ridiculous noise contest they were playing rather than tennis.



Men's tennis, IMO, is also far superior to the women's game. The only women's match that even comes close to a men's match is when the Williams sisters play one another.


I watched Henman and McEnroe doing a 5Live phone-in last night on the red button – someone phoned to suggest that the woman’s winner plays the men’s winner – the 2 of them were trying to be polite and not be misquoted, but basically they laughed the idea out of the house.

I seem to remember McEnroe (or Pat Cash) saying a few years ago that there is no way on earth that the woman’s number 1 could get near a man on the court – even going as far as to suggest that he could still beat Venus Williams despite being (about) 50 and retired for 15 years or so.

[Sir David Gray]

I watched Henman and McEnroe doing a 5Live phone-in last night on the red button – someone phoned to suggest that the woman’s winner plays the men’s winner – the 2 of them were trying to be polite and not be misquoted, but basically they laughed the idea out of the house.

I seem to remember McEnroe (or Pat Cash) saying a few years ago that there is no way on earth that the woman’s number 1 could get near a man on the court – even going as far as to suggest that he could still beat Venus Williams despite being (about) 50 and retired for 15 years or so.

If, for example, Venus Williams and Andy Murray (:pray:) win their respective Wimbledon titles and they were then to play each other, the score would probably be something like 6-0 6-1 to Murray. I think Venus (and Serena) would be competitive in a lot of the rallies with a man but they would end up being overpowered.

They are the only women who would even have a hope of taking a game from the men but I still don't think it would be much of a contest.

I think Venus could compete with John McEnroe as he is now, though. In fact, I would quite like to see that match.

[aliman82]

Scotsman had an article about it on Sunday:

http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis/Sex-appeal-outselling-skill.5408311.jp

Don't know enough about tennis to say if he's right (like all dedicated fans, I only take a vague interest when the slams come round), but an interesting read.

[Betty Boop]

Should the thread title not be "Wimbledon Prize Money" ? :greengrin

[PeeJay]

Why do the women get the same prize money as the men?

http://aeltc2009.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/guide/prizemoney.html

They only have to play 3 fifths of the games the men have to play...

Since when were tennis players paid for how long they were on court? Personally I think, on a wider scale, women are entitled to claim for equal pay for equal jobs, and if a sport like tennis helps to bring about some form of remunerative equality it’s alright by me – IMO the phrase “equality” is currently a misnomer anyway – how many women CEOs do any of you out there know off the top of your head? How many women doing the same mundane job in industry are paid less than men and so on? It’s a societal problem and surely tennis is helping to improve a poor situation?

As far as I’m concerned, men’s tennis is being praised out of all proportion here anyway – there have long been justified complaints that it’s really all down to POWER. The finesse of former tennis giants such as Laver, Newcombe and more recently of course, etc, etc, etc .... has long since gone. Of course, on a purely POWER level, women would probably lose any game between the mighty man and the weak female. Yet, I do seem to remember a while back similar discussions being bandied about by short-sighted persons claiming men’s tennis was so-o-o-o much better, fitter, cleverer, tougher than women’s tennis until they were quietened by Mrs BJK when she empowered women and educated men by defeating Bobby Riggs in one of the “greatest moments in sports history” – the Battle of the Sexes in 1973 (from a female point of view, I guess). Maybe it was down to brain and brawn, and if it come down to that, then maybe we men ought to beware the so-called weaker sex as they are always quick to pick out our failings and weak spots – see Betty Boob’s post - sort of sums it up, if you ask me!

[Betty Boop]

Since when were tennis players paid for how long they were on court? Personally I think, on a wider scale, women are entitled to claim for equal pay for equal jobs, and if a sport like tennis helps to bring about some form of remunerative equality it’s alright by me – IMO the phrase “equality” is currently a misnomer anyway – how many women CEOs do any of you out there know off the top of your head? How many women doing the same mundane job in industry are paid less than men and so on? It’s a societal problem and surely tennis is helping to improve a poor situation?

As far as I’m concerned, men’s tennis is being praised out of all proportion here anyway – there have long been justified complaints that it’s really all down to POWER. The finesse of former tennis giants such as Laver, Newcombe and more recently of course, etc, etc, etc .... has long since gone. Of course, on a purely POWER level, women would probably lose any game between the mighty man and the weak female. Yet, I do seem to remember a while back similar discussions being bandied about by short-sighted persons claiming men’s tennis was so-o-o-o much better, fitter, cleverer, tougher than women’s tennis until they were quietened by Mrs BJK when she empowered women and educated men by defeating Bobby Riggs in one of the “greatest moments in sports history” – the Battle of the Sexes in 1973 (from a female point of view, I guess). Maybe it was down to brain and brawn, and if it come down to that, then maybe we men ought to beware the so-called weaker sex as they are always quick to pick out our failings and weak spots – see Betty Boob’s post - sort of sums it up, if you ask me!
:faf:

[Tomsk]

No. I watched 5 minutes of Serena Williams v somebody else yesterday and had to switch off – it was a ridiculous noise contest they were playing rather than tennis.
.

I caught that too. And lasted about 5 minutes. I gave it my best. But even with the sound turned down I binned it ... the standard was woeful. To think that the loser of that match will be paid the same as either Roddick or Hewitt or Federer and Karlovic after today defies belief.

[PeeJay]

:faf:

...:shhhsh!: that'll teach me!!

[Monts]

Since when were tennis players paid for how long they were on court? Personally I think, on a wider scale, women are entitled to claim for equal pay for equal jobs, and if a sport like tennis helps to bring about some form of remunerative equality it’s alright by me – IMO the phrase “equality” is currently a misnomer anyway – how many women CEOs do any of you out there know off the top of your head? How many women doing the same mundane job in industry are paid less than men and so on? It’s a societal problem and surely tennis is helping to improve a poor situation?

As far as I’m concerned, men’s tennis is being praised out of all proportion here anyway – there have long been justified complaints that it’s really all down to POWER. The finesse of former tennis giants such as Laver, Newcombe and more recently of course, etc, etc, etc .... has long since gone. Of course, on a purely POWER level, women would probably lose any game between the mighty man and the weak female. Yet, I do seem to remember a while back similar discussions being bandied about by short-sighted persons claiming men’s tennis was so-o-o-o much better, fitter, cleverer, tougher than women’s tennis until they were quietened by Mrs BJK when she empowered women and educated men by defeating Bobby Riggs in one of the “greatest moments in sports history” – the Battle of the Sexes in 1973 (from a female point of view, I guess). Maybe it was down to brain and brawn, and if it come down to that, then maybe we men ought to beware the so-called weaker sex as they are always quick to pick out our failings and weak spots – see Betty Boob’s post - sort of sums it up, if you ask me!
No body said anything about being paid for the time on the court. Its the amount of games being played.

I understand your comparison to the CEOs, but the true comparison to that at the moment would be if the female CEO had to deal with 3 projects, and the males had to deal with 5 for the same amount of pay....

[Tomsk]

Since when were tennis players paid for how long they were on court? Personally I think, on a wider scale, women are entitled to claim for equal pay for equal jobs, and if a sport like tennis helps to bring about some form of remunerative equality it’s alright by me – IMO the phrase “equality” is currently a misnomer anyway – how many women CEOs do any of you out there know off the top of your head? How many women doing the same mundane job in industry are paid less than men and so on? It’s a societal problem and surely tennis is helping to improve a poor situation?

As far as I’m concerned, men’s tennis is being praised out of all proportion here anyway – there have long been justified complaints that it’s really all down to POWER. The finesse of former tennis giants such as Laver, Newcombe and more recently of course, etc, etc, etc .... has long since gone. Of course, on a purely POWER level, women would probably lose any game between the mighty man and the weak female. Yet, I do seem to remember a while back similar discussions being bandied about by short-sighted persons claiming men’s tennis was so-o-o-o much better, fitter, cleverer, tougher than women’s tennis until they were quietened by Mrs BJK when she empowered women and educated men by defeating Bobby Riggs in one of the “greatest moments in sports history” – the Battle of the Sexes in 1973 (from a female point of view, I guess). Maybe it was down to brain and brawn, and if it come down to that, then maybe we men ought to beware the so-called weaker sex as they are always quick to pick out our failings and weak spots – see Betty Boob’s post - sort of sums it up, if you ask me!

Bobby Riggs was 55 (fifty-five) years old when he played Billie Jean King in 1973. King was at the top of her game, ranked no.2 in the world. Riggs still took her to three sets. King only played because Riggs had hammered the women's no.1 Margaret Court in two sets a few months before. Rumours that he played blindfolded and with a frying pan were unfounded.

[PeeJay]

Bobby Riggs was 55 (fifty-five) years old when he played Billie Jean King in 1973. King was at the top of her game, ranked no.2 in the world. Riggs still took her to three sets. King only played because Riggs had hammered the women's no.1 Margaret Court in two sets a few months before. Rumours that he played blindfolded and with a frying pan were unfounded.

That's a fair point, of course, I must admit I didn't actually recall that wee bit!

"A master promoter of himself and the game, Riggs saw an opportunity in 1973 to make money and to elevate the popularity of a sport he loved. Although 55 years old, he deliberately played the male chauvinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_chauvinism) card and came out of retirement to challenge one of the world's greatest female players to a match, claiming that the female game was inferior and that a top female player could not beat him even at the age of 55."

I realise naturally that men would normally beat women in tennis, I was looking at it more from a gender equality aspect - I have no problem with women receiving equal prize money and see no reason to dispute it. TBH though I don't watch women's tennis (used to though) nor women's football, which is hugely popular over here in Germany - to tell the truth, I usually just watch Wimbeldon until the British interest departs!

[PeeJay]

No body said anything about being paid for the time on the court. Its the amount of games being played.


FalkirHibee actually put it thus: "If you compare the amount of time that the men have spent on court to how long the women have played for, you can clearly see the difference.

All of the male quarter finalists have spent around 9 hours on court so far, whereas the four remaining women have got to the semis having played just 5 hours of tennis, with the exception of Safina."

As with everything in life it seems, women have to fight very hard to achieve any sense of equality to their male counterparts, so once achieved I would suggest better arguments be brought forward rather than those posted here to have it changed. It's not as if male tennis players are poorly paid or having to take a cut in prize money is it?

[Killiehibbie]

Bobby Riggs was 55 (fifty-five) years old when he played Billie Jean King in 1973. King was at the top of her game, ranked no.2 in the world. Riggs still took her to three sets. King only played because Riggs had hammered the women's no.1 Margaret Court in two sets a few months before. Rumours that he played blindfolded and with a frying pan were unfounded.
i remember reading a book about Riggs and he did play a tennis match with a frying pan. He pulled all sorts of stunts in his quest to part people from their money.

[Danderhall Hibs]

FalkirHibee actually put it thus: "If you compare the amount of time that the men have spent on court to how long the women have played for, you can clearly see the difference.

All of the male quarter finalists have spent around 9 hours on court so far, whereas the four remaining women have got to the semis having played just 5 hours of tennis, with the exception of Safina."

As with everything in life it seems, women have to fight very hard to achieve any sense of equality to their male counterparts, so once achieved I would suggest better arguments be brought forward rather than those posted here to have it changed. It's not as if male tennis players are poorly paid or having to take a cut in prize money is it?

As mentioned earlier just have one competition with men and women in it and double the prize money.

If they think they're equal they'd take the chance I reckon.

[PeeJay]

As mentioned earlier just have one competition with men and women in it and double the prize money.

If they think they're equal they'd take the chance I reckon.

I don't know if you've ever watched a mixed doubles match, but the women seem to acquit themselves quite well against their male opponents, but perhaps you think they only score off their female opponents?:wink: Generally though, as I've already said - women would tend to lose most matches against males.

I still think men get paid more than enough in tennis to not want to have the cake all to themselves - I guess we won't agree though.:bye:

[Betty Boop]

FalkirHibee actually put it thus: "If you compare the amount of time that the men have spent on court to how long the women have played for, you can clearly see the difference.

All of the male quarter finalists have spent around 9 hours on court so far, whereas the four remaining women have got to the semis having played just 5 hours of tennis, with the exception of Safina."

As with everything in life it seems, women have to fight very hard to achieve any sense of equality to their male counterparts, so once achieved I would suggest better arguments be brought forward rather than those posted here to have it changed. It's not as if male tennis players are poorly paid or having to take a cut in prize money is it?
:top marks Peejay! :greengrin

[Danderhall Hibs]

I don't know if you've ever watched a mixed doubles match, but the women seem to acquit themselves quite well against their male opponents, but perhaps you think they only score off their female opponents?:wink: Generally though, as I've already said - women would tend to lose most matches against males.

I still think men get paid more than enough in tennis to not want to have the cake all to themselves - I guess we won't agree though.:bye:

The biggest/best chance to break in mixed doubles is when the woman is serving to the guy.

I'm not saying pay the men more I'm just saying let's make it truly equal and have one mixed competition - if a woman wins it she'd get the £1.7m.

[Woody1985]

Since when were tennis players paid for how long they were on court? Personally I think, on a wider scale, women are entitled to claim for equal pay for equal jobs, and if a sport like tennis helps to bring about some form of remunerative equality it’s alright by me – IMO the phrase “equality” is currently a misnomer anyway – how many women CEOs do any of you out there know off the top of your head? How many women doing the same mundane job in industry are paid less than men and so on? It’s a societal problem and surely tennis is helping to improve a poor situation?

As far as I’m concerned, men’s tennis is being praised out of all proportion here anyway – there have long been justified complaints that it’s really all down to POWER. The finesse of former tennis giants such as Laver, Newcombe and more recently of course, etc, etc, etc .... has long since gone. Of course, on a purely POWER level, women would probably lose any game between the mighty man and the weak female. Yet, I do seem to remember a while back similar discussions being bandied about by short-sighted persons claiming men’s tennis was so-o-o-o much better, fitter, cleverer, tougher than women’s tennis until they were quietened by Mrs BJK when she empowered women and educated men by defeating Bobby Riggs in one of the “greatest moments in sports history” – the Battle of the Sexes in 1973 (from a female point of view, I guess). Maybe it was down to brain and brawn, and if it come down to that, then maybe we men ought to beware the so-called weaker sex as they are always quick to pick out our failings and weak spots – see Betty Boob’s post - sort of sums it up, if you ask me!

I'd say that the main reason that women don't get equal pay / make it to the top etc is because they generally have to take time out to have kids and that can put the brakes on for some people. A fair number of women then work part time after having kids making it harder to progress again or less motivated when they do return to work. That's just my opinion based on my experience.

If you take a year out of work your salary will generally stay the same unless there are changes across the board. That will automatically put you 1 year behind everyone else.

Where I work there are a lot of women in top jobs and are no doubt as well paid as male equivelants.

[Betty Boop]

Well guys, hardly any tennis skills on show from Karlovich, a massive serve and not much else. What a big slow, lumbering brute of a man! :duck:

[Danderhall Hibs]

Well guys, hardly any tennis skills on show from Karlovich, a massive serve and not much else. What a big slow, lumbering brute of a man! :duck:

And yet he'd still be able to beat the best the woman have on offer. What oes that tell us? :greengrin

[Tomsk]

Well guys, hardly any tennis skills on show from Karlovich, a massive serve and not much else. What a big slow, lumbering brute of a man! :duck:

You're bang on, Betty. Everything that is bad about men's tennis is found in Karlovic. I hope Federer slaughters him.

[Betty Boop]

You're bang on, Betty. Everything that is bad about men's tennis is found in Karlovic. I hope Federer slaughters him.

My eyes are bleeding! :greengrin

[Monts]

FalkirHibee actually put it thus: "If you compare the amount of time that the men have spent on court to how long the women have played for, you can clearly see the difference.

All of the male quarter finalists have spent around 9 hours on court so far, whereas the four remaining women have got to the semis having played just 5 hours of tennis, with the exception of Safina."

As with everything in life it seems, women have to fight very hard to achieve any sense of equality to their male counterparts, so once achieved I would suggest better arguments be brought forward rather than those posted here to have it changed. It's not as if male tennis players are poorly paid or having to take a cut in prize money is it?

But not hard enough to play the same amount of tennis as the men?

[Tomsk]

My eyes are bleeding! :greengrin

In truth, tennis is grossly overrated.

[RyeSloan]

In truth, tennis is grossly overrated.


On what measure???

If you saw the physical and mental endurance combined with no little amount of skill of Murray and his opponent on Monday I would say that it rates as one of the toughest individual sports around.

As for the OP, I think the equal prize money is reasonable considering it's effectively a combined tourney with men and women attracting equal coverage.

However I also think is about time the women had to play upto 5 sets in a grand slam, it is after all what the men do and I see no real reason why they shouldn't if they get paid the same.

As for the men's game is better than womens, well this is true in most sports. Most sports by their very nature lend themselves to size and physicality, something that no matter how much you believe in equal rights you have to admit that men have an unchallengable advantage in!

[Mibbes Aye]

The men play best of five sets, whereas the women only play best of three.

The male winner of Wimbledon potentially has to play 35 sets, whereas the maximum that the female winner will have to play is 21.

If you compare the amount of time that the men have spent on court to how long the women have played for, you can clearly see the difference.

All of the male quarter finalists have spent around 9 hours on court so far, whereas the four remaining women have got to the semis having played just 5 hours of tennis, with the exception of Safina.



So by that logic, you would argue that the prize money in athletics should be graduated?

100 metres runners get the lowest, marathon runners get the most :agree:

What sort of allowance do hurdlers get, or can they off-set their jumping? :greengrin

[Woody1985]

So by that logic, you would argue that the prize money in athletics should be graduated?

100 metres runners get the lowest, marathon runners get the most :agree:

What sort of allowance do hurdlers get, or can they off-set their jumping? :greengrin

That's not the logic at all.

The logic would be if women were running 80m and getting paid as the same as men doing 100m. It's the same event.

The distances of each individual event is irrelevant.

Your logic on his logic is flawed. :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

FalkirHibee actually put it thus: "If you compare the amount of time that the men have spent on court to how long the women have played for, you can clearly see the difference.

All of the male quarter finalists have spent around 9 hours on court so far, whereas the four remaining women have got to the semis having played just 5 hours of tennis, with the exception of Safina."

As with everything in life it seems, women have to fight very hard to achieve any sense of equality to their male counterparts, so once achieved I would suggest better arguments be brought forward rather than those posted here to have it changed. It's not as if male tennis players are poorly paid or having to take a cut in prize money is it?

The "equal pay for women" lobby comes from an injustice that some women are not paid the same amount of money as men are, despite doing exactly the same amount of work as them. I would support any woman's fight to claim equal pay, if they are doing the same amount of work as a male colleague. It is completely wrong to pay someone less, purely because of their gender.

I have said that it is quite correct that there is equal prize money in all other tennis tournaments, when the men and the women both play best of three sets matches.

However, in the Grand Slams, the men and women do not do equal work and, because of that, I don't believe they should receive equal pay.

Let's look at another example.

The winners of this year's wheelchair doubles tournament receive £6,750 per pair. On the other hand, the winners of the mens and womens doubles both receive £230,000 per pair. The wheelchairs only play two rounds (compared with the able bodied doubles being six rounds) but surely there is a case for the prize money being a lot closer than it is, if the women's singles winner can claim the same amount of money as the men's singles winner?

[Mibbes Aye]

That's not the logic at all.

The logic would be if women were running 80m and getting paid as the same as men doing 100m. It's the same event.

The distances of each individual event is irrelevant.

Your logic on his logic is flawed. :greengrin

Eh? :greengrin

He's (appearing to be) saying that someone who plays five sets deserves to be paid more than someone who only plays three sets etc etc etc

It's the gender that's irrelevant as FH is making an argument based on the length of time on court.

You could say that from FH's viewpoint, if some men played five-set matches and some men played three-set matches, the men playing five-set matches should be better remunerated.

On that basis, if it is just about the amount of time spent performing then my suggestion is valid - by that logic, you spend longer running a marathon than you do running 100 metres.

I suppose it throws up another question for FH. If a women's three-set match outlasts a men's five-set match, do they then deserve more money?

[hibsbollah]

Womens tennis can often be a lot more entertaining than mens tennis IMO as the big serve is less of a factor. This season it seems to be that the Williams sisters are so far ahead of the others it is a bit duller than usual. Ive heard at least two of the commentators saying that both sisters could compete on the mens tour.

On the pay argument; I would imagine the decisive factor is the audience; if as many people are watching the womens game (on TV and paying at the turnstyles-do they have turnstyles in tennis?:greengrin) as the mens game it seems fair to pay them the same.

[Woody1985]

So by that logic, you would argue that the prize money in athletics should be graduated?

100 metres runners get the lowest, marathon runners get the most :agree:

What sort of allowance do hurdlers get, or can they off-set their jumping? :greengrin


Eh? :greengrin

He's (appearing to be) saying that someone who plays five sets deserves to be paid more than someone who only plays three sets etc etc etc

It's the gender that's irrelevant as FH is making an argument based on the length of time on court.

You could say that from FH's viewpoint, if some men played five-set matches and some men played three-set matches, the men playing five-set matches should be better remunerated.

On that basis, if it is just about the amount of time spent performing then my suggestion is valid - by that logic, you spend longer running a marathon than you do running 100 metres.

I suppose it throws up another question for FH. If a women's three-set match outlasts a men's five-set match, do they then deserve more money?

Apolgies, I should have made that clearer. I'll have a go. :LOL:

The 100m was probably a crap example and more difficult to use because of my **** explanation!

If you have a womens football tourny and a mens one. The women only play 70 minutes per game and the men play 90 mins then the prize money should be different IMO.

They are taking part in the same event, same number of rounds etc but the men need to do more to achieve the end result.

Using distance running is a more difficult comparison IMO because you would say that a 100m athlete has to train differently from a marathon athlete and are therefore different events regardless of distances.

The length of time performing is only relevant if the events are the same.

Tennis is different in that they are both training, practicing and preparing in the same etc but the women do less for their pay.

Men and women running 100m should get the same pay because they are doing exactly the same.

Obviously, this is before adding in complications such as mens sport being more popular and as a result they draw in the crowds, sponsorship (mainly aimed at men) etc etc.

[hibsbollah]

Womens tennis can often be a lot more entertaining than mens tennis IMO as the big serve is less of a factor. This season it seems to be that the Williams sisters are so far ahead of the others it is a bit duller than usual. Ive heard at least two of the commentators saying that both sisters could compete on the mens tour.

On the pay argument; I would imagine the decisive factor is the audience; if as many people are watching the womens game (on TV and paying at the turnstyles-do they have turnstyles in tennis?:greengrin) as the mens game it seems fair to pay them the same.

Ive just been watching the Serena-Dementieva semifinal, brilliant entertainment:agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

Apolgies, I should have made that clearer. I'll have a go. :LOL:

The 100m was probably a crap example and more difficult to use because of my **** explanation!

If you have a womens football tourny and a mens one. The women only play 70 minutes per game and the men play 90 mins then the prize money should be different IMO.

They are taking part in the same event, same number of rounds etc but the men need to do more to achieve the end result.

Using distance running is a more difficult comparison IMO because you would say that a 100m athlete has to train differently from a marathon athlete and are therefore different events regardless of distances.

The length of time performing is only relevant if the events are the same.

Tennis is different in that they are both training, practicing and preparing in the same etc but the women do less for their pay.

Men and women running 100m should get the same pay because they are doing exactly the same.

Obviously, this is before adding in complications such as mens sport being more popular and as a result they draw in the crowds, sponsorship (mainly aimed at men) etc etc.

I think there's a point there about the difference in training. But what about if a women's tennis match lasts longer than a men's. A 7-6, 4-6, 7-5 for example as opposed to a 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 job? And there will be less pronounced versions of that scenario.

Isn't your argument therefore reduced to one of 'people should be paid pro rata for the time they are on court'?

[Killiehibbie]

I think there's a point there about the difference in training. But what about if a women's tennis match lasts longer than a men's. A 7-6, 4-6, 7-5 for example as opposed to a 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 job? And there will be less pronounced versions of that scenario.

Isn't your argument therefore reduced to one of 'people should be paid pro rata for the time they are on court'?

Ah but it's a job and finish with the men likely to be on far longer. Look at womens golf is anyone going to say they deserve equal prize money?

[Mibbes Aye]

Ah but it's a job and finish with the men likely to be on far longer. Look at womens golf is anyone going to say they deserve equal prize money?

So, because some of the time men play longer, they should always get more money?

TBH I couldn't give a flying one about tennis (though I'll support a Hibby :thumbsup:) but there are fundamental flaws in the argument that men should always be paid more because they play for longer. Such as, "...they don't always play for longer".

Not sure what the answer is, but if that is someone's argument for the differential then I struggle to see the justification.

[Jay]

Ive just been watching the Serena-Dementieva semifinal, brilliant entertainment:agree:

Just looked out this thread to say the same thing. I am not a huge fan of womens tennis but this was a great game to watch. Glad I made the effort. :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

Just looked out this thread to say the same thing. I am not a huge fan of womens tennis but this was a great game to watch. Glad I made the effort. :agree:

Yep, that was a fantastic effort and both women deserve a huge amount of credit.

Just a shame that the other semi final was nowhere near as good. To me, that match just shows how poor women's tennis actually is. Dinara Safina is the world number one and she was made to look like a complete amateur by Venus Williams, who is world number three. To lose in 51 minutes and only win one game in the entire match is extremely embarrassing for someone at her level.

If you compare that match with the male equivalent, which would be Rafael Nadal against Andy Murray (1st v 3rd), there is absolutely no way that Nadal would lose in straight sets, whilst only winning a couple of games, unless he was injured.

[hibsbollah]

To me, that match just shows how poor women's tennis actually is. Dinara Safina is the world number one and she was made to look like a complete amateur by Venus Williams, who is world number three

No, it shows how poor the ranking system is.

[Monts]

So, because some of the time men play longer, they should always get more money?

TBH I couldn't give a flying one about tennis (though I'll support a Hibby :thumbsup:) but there are fundamental flaws in the argument that men should always be paid more because they play for longer. Such as, "...they don't always play for longer".

Not sure what the answer is, but if that is someone's argument for the differential then I struggle to see the justification.

Nope...

The length of time you spend on court usually relates to the level of your opponent. If your vastly superior to your opponent surely you deserve more than if you struggle to win.

The fact remains, no matter how long is spent on court, the men have to win more games than the women.

[Sir David Gray]

No, it shows how poor the ranking system is.

I don't think it does.

Players are rewarded for consistent performances year-on-year. If you reach the final of a tournament one year, you must reach the final again the following year or you will lose a lot of points. Safina is obviously very consistent in her performances throughout the year, whereas others must be more erratic.

To me, if the number one in the world is being slaughtered like Safina was today, then it shows just how bad the rest of the women must be.

[barcahibs]

In the words of the greatest sage of our era

"What do points mean? Prizes!!"

You track how many points each player scores throughout a tournament and then assign a monetary value to each point. Whoever has played longest and scored most points gets the most money. Easy.

Honestly does anyone even bother to consult Bruce Forsyth these days? We ought to get him involved in this global warming thing. :agree:

I suppose it could possibly work out that the actual winner of the tournament doesn't have the most points but then he/she does get a nice shiny trophy which is probably worth a bit on e-bay. You can't expect Bruce to get involved in all the fine details, he's an ideas man.

[Mibbes Aye]

Nope...

The length of time you spend on court usually relates to the level of your opponent. If your vastly superior to your opponent surely you deserve more than if you struggle to win.

The fact remains, no matter how long is spent on court, the men have to win more games than the women.

Except they don't.

The fact is they don't necessarily have to, to win a match. A male player can go through winning eighteen games, a female player might have to win twenty to succeed.

It's noted you've tried to shift the argument from the number of games played, to the number of games won

Either way it still doesn't stand up. If your argument is that prize money should be based on amount of games won, then do you agree that prize money should be allocated on that basis?? If not, then what's your point??

I'm going for the Brucie "Good game, good game, what good luck, what bad luck, what good luck my love" approach. Would simplify Wimbers in an instant as he paired up the men and women players and subjected them to his charmless but abjectly addictive innuendo :agree:



If your vastly superior to your opponent surely you deserve more than if you struggle to win


How does that work then? Extra points for defeating numpties???

[RyeSloan]

Except they don't.

The fact is they don't necessarily have to, to win a match. A male player can go through winning eighteen games, a female player might have to win twenty to succeed.

It's noted you've tried to shift the argument from the number of games played, to the number of games won

Either way it still doesn't stand up. If your argument is that prize money should be based on amount of games won, then do you agree that prize money should be allocated on that basis?? If not, then what's your point??

I'm going for the Brucie "Good game, good game, what good luck, what bad luck, what good luck my love" approach. Would simplify Wimbers in an instant as he paired up the men and women players and subjected them to his charmless but abjectly addictive innuendo :agree:



How does that work then? Extra points for defeating numpties???

Run this theory of yours past me again as I fail to see how women in a grand slam could ever play more games than a man.

Men need to win 3 sets each match to win their round so a MINIMUM of 18. Women need to win 2 sets so using the same minimum the answer is 12.

For Maximums (if you take non last sets to be 6-6 and decided on tie break and the final set 7-5) the men will have 31 Max while a woman is a poor distant 19 games, only one more that a mens minimum!!

It is clear that no matter which way you cut men will almost ALWAYS play more tennis in a grand slam tourney than a womens....to say other wise or suggest that the differential is small is simply just not true.

There is no physical reason women couldn't play 5 set matches and think for a number of reasons (not just their equal pay) think that its about time the did.

[Tomsk]

Run this theory of yours past me again as I fail to see how women in a grand slam could ever play more games than a man.

Men need to win 3 sets each match to win their round so a MINIMUM of 18. Women need to win 2 sets so using the same minimum the answer is 12.

For Maximums (if you take non last sets to be 6-6 and decided on tie break and the final set 7-5) the men will have 31 Max while a woman is a poor distant 19 games, only one more that a mens minimum!!

It is clear that no matter which way you cut men will almost ALWAYS play more tennis in a grand slam tourney than a womens....to say other wise or suggest that the differential is small is simply just not true.

There is no physical reason women couldn't play 5 set matches and think for a number of reasons (not just their equal pay) think that its about time the did.

There's no physical reason except that the crowd who are waiting on the men to come on would start defecating into their empty strawberry cartons and pissing into their empty bottles of Pims and throwing them at the effin' players if the match went into a fourth set.

I am all for women playing the best of three sets. In fact, how about making it best of three games? Or maybe they could just play best of three paper scissors stone -- as long as they dont do it with a racquet and ball and stop that effin' screaming.

[Mibbes Aye]

Run this theory of yours past me again as I fail to see how women in a grand slam could ever play more games than a man.

Men need to win 3 sets each match to win their round so a MINIMUM of 18. Women need to win 2 sets so using the same minimum the answer is 12.

For Maximums (if you take non last sets to be 6-6 and decided on tie break and the final set 7-5) the men will have 31 Max while a woman is a poor distant 19 games, only one more that a mens minimum!!

It is clear that no matter which way you cut men will almost ALWAYS play more tennis in a grand slam tourney than a womens....to say other wise or suggest that the differential is small is simply just not true.

There is no physical reason women couldn't play 5 set matches and think for a number of reasons (not just their equal pay) think that its about time the did.

As you say, men can go through playing only eighteen games. A women might have to play thirty-six to win her match. That's not counting the tie-break as a game in its own right, although it's reflected as one in the scoring, but it suits your argument not to count it. Nevertheless in those circumstances it is possible that the women player has won more games

They're extremes, but my point is to those arguing that men deserve more prize money because they play more games - given that they don't necessarily always play more games how can you justify paying them more as a matter of course?

If the criteria is time on court and even if it is amount of games won, fair enough. The prize money has to be allocated some way. But if that is the criteria, then an arbitrary difference between men and women's prize money is inequitable. As is anything other than a pro rata allocation.

Obviously if you do go down that route then it opens up a can of worms around the difference in abilities between the two players and what effect that might have on the game etc etc, so there are clear flaws in that.

I'm not suggesting there is a flawless system for awarding prize money, merely that the justifications proferred for why men should automatically get more don't stand up.

[Danderhall Hibs]

There's no physical reason except that the crowd who are waiting on the men to come on would start defecating into their empty strawberry cartons and pissing into their empty bottles of Pims and throwing them at the effin' players if the match went into a fourth set.

I am all for women playing the best of three sets. In fact, how about making it best of three games? Or maybe they could just play best of three paper scissors stone -- as long as they dont do it with a racquet and ball and stop that effin' screaming.

:hilarious



As you say, men can go through playing only eighteen games. A women might have to play thirty-six to win her match.

How so?

[Killiehibbie]

:hilarious




How so?

3 sets all go 6-6

[GhostofBolivar]

How so?

7-6 6-7 6-4 = 36 games. Not exactly rocket surgery.

[Danderhall Hibs]

3 sets all go 6-6

Ah. I was only counting how many she needs to win.

So in that case a man might need to win 60 vs the wifies 36.

[Mibbes Aye]

:hilarious




How so?

If she goes through 7-6, 6-7, 7-5. That's not counting the tie-breaks in the first two sets - if you do count them it's 38 games.

[Danderhall Hibs]

7-6 6-7 6-4 = 36 games. Not exactly rocket surgery.

What's that? Is there such a thing? :dunno:

Who are these rocket surgeons? :greengrin

[Killiehibbie]

Ah. I was only counting how many she needs to win.

So in that case a man might need to win 60 vs the wifies 36.

He was counting potential games played rather than games needed to be won.

[Danderhall Hibs]

He was counting potential games played rather than games needed to be won.

Got it now mate – just a wee slip up on my behalf. It doesn’t happen very often – I think that’s why I’m getting hammered for it. :greengrin

[Killiehibbie]

Got it now mate – just a wee slip up on my behalf. It doesn’t happen very often – I think that’s why I’m getting hammered for it. :greengrin

A brain scientist like you will be able to handle it.:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

He was counting potential games played rather than games needed to be won.

:agree: Which is the gist of it.

I would presume that men, on average, play more games and win more games. But it will fluctuate, sometimes some men will play more and win more to achieve the same outcome than others. A woman may play more games to achieve the same outcome, and however unlikely, could have to win more games.

Therefore to say that prize money should be differentiated between men and women because men play or win more games isn't really equitable. Not saying I have a better system, just saying that there needs to better reasoning for why there are differentials. And that's not through worshipping at the PC altar, it's merely using the arguments of the proponents of how things have been done.

[Mibbes Aye]

What's that? Is there such a thing? :dunno:

Who are these rocket surgeons? :greengrin

:greengrin

I like it. Whether deliberate or not. Think I'll use it :agree:

[Danderhall Hibs]

:agree: Which is the gist of it.

I would presume that men, on average, play more games and win more games. But it will fluctuate, sometimes some men will play more and win more to achieve the same outcome than others. A woman may play more games to achieve the same outcome, and however unlikely, could have to win more games.

Therefore to say that prize money should be differentiated between men and women because men play or win more games isn't really equitable. Not saying I have a better system, just saying that there needs to better reasoning for why there are differentials. And that's not through worshipping at the PC altar, it's merely using the arguments of the proponents of how things have been done.


It all comes back to the same point - if they think they are equal and want the same candy as the men they can all play together in one mixed tournament.

[Sir David Gray]

How so?

A woman may have to play at least 40 games to win a match. Since there is no tie-break in the final set at Wimbledon, if the first two sets are 7-6 6-7, the final set could be 8-6, or 9-7 etc...

It is rare for that to happen but for a man to play 40 games in a Grand Slam match is not so rare.

All that needs to happen for that to occur would be for the first three sets to go to tie-breaks and for it to be two sets to one. That would be 39 games right away.

Then in the fourth set, regardless of what the score is, the 40 game mark is surpassed. If it goes to a fifth set, you could be talking about the men playing around 60 games of tennis.

Obviously that is also a rare example but it cannot be denied than nine and a half times out of ten, over the two weeks of Wimbledon, the amount of tennis that is played by the female champion is nowhere near the amount of tennis that is played by the male champion.

[Mibbes Aye]

It all comes back to the same point - if they think they are equal and want the same candy as the men they can all play together in one mixed tournament.

There's arguably a lot more equity in that.

I've occasionally wondered how tennis compares to other sports in the level of subsidy it relies on to exist (albeit mostly from the private sector). There's no way it 'washes its own face'. Not many sports could, I imagine, but it surely must be fairly near the top of the list of the most sponsorship-reliant professional sports.

[Tomsk]

You are all missing the point. We shouldn't be encouraging them to play more sets. We should be encouraging them to play less. How about ... em, none! :top marks

[Killiehibbie]

I heard it mentioned that one of the womens semis went on for over 2 1/2 hours a record in the modern era. Lots of mens games far exceed that time on court. I read one pro punters view that womens tennis was one of his main money makers as it was so uncompetitive.

[Betty Boop]

Its an injustice!!!!!:faf:

[Monts]

:agree: Which is the gist of it.

I would presume that men, on average, play more games and win more games. But it will fluctuate, sometimes some men will play more and win more to achieve the same outcome than others. A woman may play more games to achieve the same outcome, and however unlikely, could have to win more games.

Therefore to say that prize money should be differentiated between men and women because men play or win more games isn't really equitable. Not saying I have a better system, just saying that there needs to better reasoning for why there are differentials. And that's not through worshipping at the PC altar, it's merely using the arguments of the proponents of how things have been done.

How about sets won?

[Mibbes Aye]

How about sets won?

Why?

[Woody1985]

They should all be playing best of 5 or best of 3.

[RyeSloan]

As you say, men can go through playing only eighteen games. A women might have to play thirty-six to win her match. That's not counting the tie-break as a game in its own right, although it's reflected as one in the scoring, but it suits your argument not to count it. Nevertheless in those circumstances it is possible that the women player has won more games

They're extremes, but my point is to those arguing that men deserve more prize money because they play more games - given that they don't necessarily always play more games how can you justify paying them more as a matter of course?

If the criteria is time on court and even if it is amount of games won, fair enough. The prize money has to be allocated some way. But if that is the criteria, then an arbitrary difference between men and women's prize money is inequitable. As is anything other than a pro rata allocation.

Obviously if you do go down that route then it opens up a can of worms around the difference in abilities between the two players and what effect that might have on the game etc etc, so there are clear flaws in that.

I'm not suggesting there is a flawless system for awarding prize money, merely that the justifications proferred for why men should automatically get more don't stand up.


Aww c'mon you can't take a man winning all his sets 6-0 to a women having to play three sets right to the wire as a comparison!

The easiest and clearest way is to count games required to win...on any measure men will have to play more.

Even if you take total games played as the men can play best of 5 then it is an absolute stick on that during a tourney they will have to play significantly more games....lets look at the tourney in question, we will go back the last 3 rounds for the finalists:

Roddick: Won 73 Played 134

Federer: Won 60 Played 104

Serena: Won 45 Played 72

Venus: Won 36 Played 44

So despite Serena playing well into a non tie break deciding set even over 3 rounds the women are WELL behind. In fact Roddick has played something like 3 times as much tennis in only 3 rounds than Venus has.

The simple fact is that your determination to pretend that women will play anything like the same amount of tennis in a grand slam is valiant but deeply flawed thus your statement of "given that they don't necessarily always play more games how can you justify paying them more as a matter of course?" simply does not hold true...they will and do play more games.

[Mibbes Aye]

Aww c'mon you can't take a man winning all his sets 6-0 to a women having to play three sets right to the wire as a comparison!

The easiest and clearest way is to count games required to win...on any measure men will have to play more.

Even if you take total games played as the men can play best of 5 then it is an absolute stick on that during a tourney they will have to play significantly more games....lets look at the tourney in question, we will go back the last 3 rounds for the finalists:

Roddick: Won 73 Played 134

Federer: Won 60 Played 104

Serena: Won 45 Played 72

Venus: Won 36 Played 44

So despite Serena playing well into a non tie break deciding set even over 3 rounds the women are WELL behind. In fact Roddick has played something like 3 times as much tennis in only 3 rounds than Venus has.

The simple fact is that your determination to pretend that women will play anything like the same amount of tennis in a grand slam is valiant but deeply flawed thus your statement of "given that they don't necessarily always play more games how can you justify paying them more as a matter of course?" simply does not hold true...they will and do play more games.


Aww c'mon you can't take a man winning all his sets 6-0 to a women having to play three sets right to the wire as a comparison!

Why not?

Anyway, despite what you say I'm not trying to claim that women will generally play the same amount of tennis.

What I'm trying to say is that people are defending an arbitrary difference between men and women on the supposition that men play more games.

That is questionable though because the potential exists for women to play more games. It also glosses over the fact that some men play more games than other men. It's an inherently flawed argument.

I'm not saying there is a flawless way of allocating prize money in tennis, merely saying that if you automatically give men more money because only some (or even most) of the time they play for longer, it's not equitable.

[Killiehibbie]

Why not?

Anyway, despite what you say I'm not trying to claim that women will generally play the same amount of tennis.

What I'm trying to say is that people are defending an arbitrary difference between men and women on the supposition that men play more games.

That is questionable though because the potential exists for women to play more games. It also glosses over the fact that some men play more games than other men. It's an inherently flawed argument.

I'm not saying there is a flawless way of allocating prize money in tennis, merely saying that if you automatically give men more money because only some (or even most) of the time they play for longer, it's not equitable.

The mens game generates more interest and money than the womens ever will. Did you ever see anybody wearing Billy Jean King shoes or Virginia Wade shirts?

[Mibbes Aye]

The mens game generates more interest and money than the womens ever will. Did you ever see anybody wearing Billy Jean King shoes or Virginia Wade shirts?

That's a different argument but a valid one.

I'm not convinced on the interest angle. I think if an 'Andrea Murray' had come forward, showing the level of talent Andy has, she would be hyped up just as equally. Maybe more in fact - if she was even close to good-looking the press would be all over her like a rash.

On the money side, don't know enough to comment. As I posted earlier I suspect tennis is heavily-subsidised to begin with, and those pumping money in do it for reasons that don't include the altruistic.

[Monts]

Why?

Because it is the only part of the game that you do not have to win by two clear. Therefore there is no possibility of the opponent forcing the match to into an indefinite amount of sets.

[RyeSloan]

Why not?

Anyway, despite what you say I'm not trying to claim that women will generally play the same amount of tennis.

What I'm trying to say is that people are defending an arbitrary difference between men and women on the supposition that men play more games.

That is questionable though because the potential exists for women to play more games. It also glosses over the fact that some men play more games than other men. It's an inherently flawed argument.

I'm not saying there is a flawless way of allocating prize money in tennis, merely saying that if you automatically give men more money because only some (or even most) of the time they play for longer, it's not equitable.

Why not..because you can't compare apples with pears.

You say the potential exists for women to play more games...I have proven to you that this potential simply does not translate in real life and that was only over half the tourney.

The fact is men do play more games than women, they play faster, longer matches.

You finally admit that you simply don't believe longer matches deserve more money..fair enough, trying to support that by saying women can play more tennis than men when they clearly don't does little to give credence to your view however.

Personally I think time and effort spent on the court would seem to be a damn fine place to start when considering proze money and as I've stated think that women should of course be paid the same but only if they are asked to do the same....simple fact is they do not.

[Killiehibbie]

Should English Second division players get paid more than EPL players after all they play more league games. No because they couldn't survive in that League.

[Mibbes Aye]

Why not..because you can't compare apples with pears.

You say the potential exists for women to play more games...I have proven to you that this potential simply does not translate in real life and that was only over half the tourney.

The fact is men do play more games than women, they play faster, longer matches.

You finally admit that you simply don't believe longer matches deserve more money..fair enough, trying to support that by saying women can play more tennis than men when they clearly don't does little to give credence to your view however.

Personally I think time and effort spent on the court would seem to be a damn fine place to start when considering proze money and as I've stated think that women should of course be paid the same but only if they are asked to do the same....simple fact is they do not.

I think you miss the point. While they almost always play less, to have a system that says they should be paid less because they will always play less is inequitable. It's a crude and artificial differentiation that ignores that mens' matches are of varying lengths, for example.

You have argued that the amount of games involved is vastly different and this justifies the difference. By your own figures Roddick has had to play around 33% more games than Federer. Are you suggesting he should get a third more prize money if he wins then?

If not, why not?

As I say, if the argument is about time on court then surely it has to be pro rata, which could mean women's prize money going down and men's prize money varying dramatically. That would be a pain to administrate and throws up issues around playing games for the sake of it. It would be deeply flawed but only in a different way from a system that says we will pay women less because they play less but we won't apply that principle within the mens' game.

[Mibbes Aye]

Because it is the only part of the game that you do not have to win by two clear. Therefore there is no possibility of the opponent forcing the match to into an indefinite amount of sets.

Going by 'sets won' I'm assuming would simplify things massively - womens' prize money would be 2/3rds of mens' consistently wouldn't it?

It wouldn't take account of the games played to win the sets though, (which seems to be at the heart of the justifications for paying men more) so where's the equity?

[Monts]

Going by 'sets won' I'm assuming would simplify things massively - womens' prize money would be 2/3rds of mens' consistently wouldn't it?

It wouldn't take account of the games played to win the sets though, (which seems to be at the heart of the justifications for paying men more) so where's the equity?

The games played is a by-product of having to win the set. Playing more sets means playing more games. As there is not a maximum amount of games that can be played then there is a possibility of the women playing more games occasionally.
But the crux of the matter is that the men have to win more sets to win a match. That never changes. Theres no variable in it. So if they consistantly have to win more, why shouldnt they be paid more?

[Mibbes Aye]

The games played is a by-product of having to win the set. Playing more sets means playing more games. As there is not a maximum amount of games that can be played then there is a possibility of the women playing more games occasionally.
But the crux of the matter is that the men have to win more sets to win a match. That never changes. Theres no variable in it. So if they consistantly have to win more, why shouldnt they be paid more?

So how would you do it? Simply have womens' prize money always exactly 2/3rd that of men? Not disagreeing with you Bernz, I can see the rationale. It doesn't account for effort put in - but then none of the potential options tick all the boxes, by the looks of it.

As I hope I've made clear, I don't particularly have a strong view on what prize money tennis players should get, merely asking the question why women shouldn't be paid the same. The justification presented most frequently is that men get more money because they play more games. This is shown to be potentially not true, and also there is no differentiation applied within the mens' game about the amounts played, even though it can vary dramatically.

So, in essence, one rule is being applied to men and another to women. If you say Andy Roddick deserves more prize money because he's played more than Williams has, surely if he wins tomorrow he deserves more money than Federer would get, because he's played substantially more than Roger?

If you base it on numbers of sets won then I can see that having a bit more fairness to it. Throws up the question though - shouldn't you distinguish between the amount of sets dropped as well?

[RyeSloan]

So how would you do it? Simply have womens' prize money always exactly 2/3rd that of men? Not disagreeing with you Bernz, I can see the rationale. It doesn't account for effort put in - but then none of the potential options tick all the boxes, by the looks of it.

As I hope I've made clear, I don't particularly have a strong view on what prize money tennis players should get, merely asking the question why women shouldn't be paid the same. The justification presented most frequently is that men get more money because they play more games. This is shown to be potentially not true, and also there is no differentiation applied within the mens' game about the amounts played, even though it can vary dramatically.

So, in essence, one rule is being applied to men and another to women. If you say Andy Roddick deserves more prize money because he's played more than Williams has, surely if he wins tomorrow he deserves more money than Federer would get, because he's played substantially more than Roger?

If you base it on numbers of sets won then I can see that having a bit more fairness to it. Throws up the question though - shouldn't you distinguish between the amount of sets dropped as well?

Like two dogs with a bone..:greengrin


"As I hope I've made clear, I don't particularly have a strong view on what prize money tennis players should get" - You sure as hell spend a lot of time writing about it tho :greengrin

"merely asking the question why women shouldn't be paid the same" - Something along the lines of the more you work the more you get paid...not exactly a revolutionary thought!

This one I like!! "The justification presented most frequently is that men get more money because they play more games. This is shown to be potentially not true".....Oopps you've done it again.....there is no potential about it they simply do play more games....go and try to find a grand slam where a woman has played more tennis to win that a man, it simply doesn't happen.

Finally the destinction is betwen men and female because they play in separate tournies....Rodger and Andy are playing in the same tournie and are therefore subject to the same rules and therefore the same potential number of games so equal money here makes total sense. What doesn't make sense is another group of players (hey they could all be male as well for arguments sake!) playing a different tourney where they had to do considerably less to win but yet are rewarded with the same level of prize money....that to makes doesn't make much sense and thus believe that women in tennis should be asked to play 5 sets matches before they receive equal prize money!!

In essence you don't think that being asked to do considerably more than others is worthy of considerably more prize money and I do so there you have it, a subject well worthy of the pages and pages of debate for sure :greengrin :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Like two dogs with a bone..:greengrin

:agree: :greengrin



Finally the destinction is betwen men and female because they play in separate tournies....Rodger and Andy are playing in the same tournie and are therefore subject to the same rules and therefore the same potential number of games so equal money here makes total sense. What doesn't make sense is another group of players (hey they could all be male as well for arguments sake!) playing a different tourney where they had to do considerably less to win but yet are rewarded with the same level of prize money....that to makes doesn't make much sense and thus believe that women in tennis should be asked to play 5 sets matches before they receive equal prize money!!


So by that token the prize money for all mens' tournaments should be the same, given they are doing the same thing over and over again?

If not, why not?

And how does that work when a lot of the ATP tour is actually three sets for men?

And if, like you said above, the men are playing a different tourney then surely your "apples and pears" quote comes back into play and women can receive any sort of prize money, less, more, or the same, because as you say it's different. No???