The Tennis Thread
Discussion
jonby said:
I'm baffled. This, IMHO, has little to do with the argument about whether women play 3 or 5 sets and everything to do with women wanting positive discrimination and subsidies
You have to look at who pays the money and where it comes from, which is tournament sponsorship, TV revenue & ticket revenue. In all instances, with people paying more to watch the men than the women. This has nothing to do with 'earning' money and everything to do with sports people as a commodity
That's why the PL pays it's players more than rugby or track & field athletes, but then Usain Bolt can earn huge sums (as does sharapova) through personal sponsorship for their unique, individual appeal
At the top level, athletes aren't paid solely for their work effort or achievement. They are paid as celebrities who sell products, whether the product is advertising revenue in the half time TV breaks, or physical products like shampoo or clothing
Messi isn't just paid his salary because of what he does on the football pitch, but also because of what he does in the way of shirt sales, ticket sales, club tv revenue, etc
I find it disgusting that anyone who criticises the tennis policy is branded 'sexist' and immediately shut down as being politically unacceptable. If women don't like it (and in most tournaments they are on equal pay now anyway), I don't think they should play 5 sets - I think they should play in the mens tournaments. That's 'equality'. They set up their own tournament because they aren't good enough to compete with men, but get the same money. You couldn't make it up
let's make it non-sexist then - women and men play together, job doneYou have to look at who pays the money and where it comes from, which is tournament sponsorship, TV revenue & ticket revenue. In all instances, with people paying more to watch the men than the women. This has nothing to do with 'earning' money and everything to do with sports people as a commodity
That's why the PL pays it's players more than rugby or track & field athletes, but then Usain Bolt can earn huge sums (as does sharapova) through personal sponsorship for their unique, individual appeal
At the top level, athletes aren't paid solely for their work effort or achievement. They are paid as celebrities who sell products, whether the product is advertising revenue in the half time TV breaks, or physical products like shampoo or clothing
Messi isn't just paid his salary because of what he does on the football pitch, but also because of what he does in the way of shirt sales, ticket sales, club tv revenue, etc
I find it disgusting that anyone who criticises the tennis policy is branded 'sexist' and immediately shut down as being politically unacceptable. If women don't like it (and in most tournaments they are on equal pay now anyway), I don't think they should play 5 sets - I think they should play in the mens tournaments. That's 'equality'. They set up their own tournament because they aren't good enough to compete with men, but get the same money. You couldn't make it up
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Can't disagree with what you're saying but as I see it there are two separate issues, one being the question of equal prize money for men and women, the other being the distribution of prize money within the men's and women's games. To take the second first, I think there's little doubt it's too difficult for players lower down the rankings to make a decent living at the game and I think that should be addressed; the "star" players are devalued if there isn't a competitive tour (and hence they need the other players) and even if the prize money split was more equitable - with them getting less - they'd still earn far more overall thanks to sponsorship, appearance money, etc. I'm actually surprised this hasn't been tackled before now as the debate's been on-going for years; however, it continues to be a bit of an elephant in the room and the authorities seem happy to ignore it (presumably because they're scared of having a difficult conversation with the top players?). I'm therefore not holding my breath for it to be resolved any time soon but perhaps people will give it more thought if it emerges some lower ranked players have been accepting money to fix matches because they're scratching to make ends meet; doesn't in any way justify that sort of behaviour but maybe an environment has been created whereby it's easy to tempt people down the wrong road?
In terms of equal prize money for men and women I'm afraid I don't think it's justified and never have. The quality of the product is significantly different (which is reflected in things like attendances, TV viewing figures, etc) and, while I think Ray Moore could have made his point with more subtlety, I think in many respects he was right. Djokovic has basically said the same (i.e. he agrees with the sentiment if not the way it was expressed) and, while people like Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova may be disappointed that people are having the temerity to raise the issue again, IMO they got away with one when the Grand Slams agreed to equal prize money. That said I doubt anyone will dare reverse that decision now so my guess is that the whole thing will probably blow over and be quietly forgotten within a few weeks. However, it will be very interesting to hear Federer and Nadal's views on the subject if they're quizzed about it in Miami this week!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think we're actually in violent agreement here! I agree the distribution of prize money within both the men's and women's game is by far the more important issue; the bit about equal prize money for men and women at a relatively small number of events is really a sideshow but it's one that often touches a raw nerve and hence tends to take centre stage whenever it's mentioned (the quotes from Ray Moore and Djokovic even made the 10pm News on the BBC last night!). Following the storm created by his comments I see Ray Moore has now resigned his position as tournament director for Indian Wells and I suspect Novak will get a bit of a grilling when he does his first press conference in Miami later this week. However, all this is just a distraction from the far more important issue which is that the division of the cake within each of the men's and women's games needs addressing; IMO that still doesn't make equal prize money for the men and women at events like Grand Slams right but I'd agree it's not the most important thing on which to focus.http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/tennis/tennis-raymon...
It is wise to know when and how to put your points across. He's ooot!
It is wise to know when and how to put your points across. He's ooot!
Justices said:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/tennis/tennis-raymon...
It is wise to know when and how to put your points across. He's ooot!
He's almost 70, he was going anyway; just took the opportunity to say what he, and many others, have been thinking for a long time.It is wise to know when and how to put your points across. He's ooot!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, almost seems like you're not allowed an opinion on this unless of course you support equal pay for women; the fact they're providing a product of a lower standard - which is reflected in the revenue their tour is able to generate - seems to be viewed as irrelevant. However, as has been said before, equal prize money for men and women at a relatively small number of events isn't what the debate should be about; the distribution of wealth throughout the men's and women's games is a far more important issue IMO....Good, he is a Gentleman too.
However his brother can make himself look a weapons grade **** at times....as he is currently doing with his petulant behaviour against Dimitrov now. He does himself no favours.
Edited by Robbo66 on Monday 28th March 22:22
Edited by Robbo66 on Monday 28th March 22:23
Babw said:
Can Nishikori stop Djokovic?
(Probably not but I'll watch in hope anyway!)
No he couldn't and the way Djokovic is playing at the moment I think he's got a very realistic chance of winning all the majors in 2016; mind you, I thought that last year but Wawrinka produced an exceptional performance to beat him in Paris so a calendar year Grand Slam is far from certain! However, I'm starting to think that Novak is quite likely to beat Federer's record of 17 Grand Slams; don't see Roger adding to his total now but can definitely see Djokovic winning another 7 over the next 2 or 3 years....(Probably not but I'll watch in hope anyway!)
Managed to get a ticket for the Monte Carlo final next week. Have been twice before, both games were Nadal v Djokovic. I think I'll be seeing Novak again, and would like to see Nadal again but on recent form it's less likely. Would absolutely love to see Roger play, but it's his first tournament for about 3 months so I'd be surprised to see him get to a final already.
I didn't realise the women players use faster tennis balls until Andy Murray complained during his game that he had been given the wrong one the other day.
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/story/_/id/15076348/a...
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/story/_/id/15076348/a...
North West Tom said:
Managed to get a ticket for the Monte Carlo final next week. Have been twice before, both games were Nadal v Djokovic. I think I'll be seeing Novak again, and would like to see Nadal again but on recent form it's less likely. Would absolutely love to see Roger play, but it's his first tournament for about 3 months so I'd be surprised to see him get to a final already.
Sure it will be a great weekend almost regardless of who makes the final, suitably envious! 
Does anyone in this thread play or is it just the tour and slams that get discussed?
Very surprised that Djokovic got knocked out, especially this early, I know clay isn't his strongest surface but I would have thought he would have made semi's at least. It could make the French a bit more interesting as he's been untouchable for the last year, I don't see Stan replicating last year's run and Nadal is not the player he was by a long way.
Very surprised that Djokovic got knocked out, especially this early, I know clay isn't his strongest surface but I would have thought he would have made semi's at least. It could make the French a bit more interesting as he's been untouchable for the last year, I don't see Stan replicating last year's run and Nadal is not the player he was by a long way.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff