Wimbledon argument...
Discussion
Babw said:
Why are you mixing commercial worth with prize money?
I suppose it's because I view professional tennis as (amongst other things) a commercial business and therefore how you reward the participants is in my mind connected to how successful or otherwise the sport is commercially. IMO the men's game is far more of a draw than the women's and I think the rewards (of which prize money is one element) should reflect that. I'm not in any way saying I don't have respect for the ability and talent of female tennis professionals, I just don't think they're at anything like the same level as the men and that's reflected in the relative attractiveness of their sport; therefore, I don't think they deserve to be paid the same.Babw said:
No one is asking for men and women to have equal commercial remuneration, that would be stupid.
Agreed (!) but I think it's quite illogical to accept that men and women ought to be rewarded according to their worth when it comes to things like sponsorship and appearance money but should be treated equally when it comes to prize money; there's a reason why there's difference when market forces prevail so why pretend the two sports are somehow equal - and fix the market - when it comes to prize money?Babw said:
It's no less of a challenge for Williams to go through the rounds and beat everyone as it is for Djokovic so again why should she get less of a prize for succeeding at the same challenge?
I think a subsequent post has said something along the lines of giving male and female tennis players equal prize money is like having the same reward for winning both the Premier League and League 1 and that's my view I'm afraid; as a product the women's game is not at the same level as the men's and hence equal prize money simply isn't justified IMO.
JNW1 said:
No less of a challenge? Well, Williams has to play far fewer sets than Djokovic (so immediately it's not quite the same challenge) but more significant in my mind is that the women's game has far less strength in depth; as a consequence, Serena can virtually walk through the early rounds unless she's injured whereas in contrast the top men have to be on their game from the first round or they're in danger of getting dumped - just watched Nadal lose to Brown in the second round which illustrates the point! Therefore, while Serena can only beat what's in front of her (and invariably does), I don't think she faces anything like the strength of field Djokovic does in a Grand Slam (so not the same challenge and therefore not worthy of the same reward IMO).
I think a subsequent post has said something along the lines of giving male and female tennis players equal prize money is like having the same reward for winning both the Premier League and League 1 and that's my view I'm afraid; as a product the women's game is not at the same level as the men's and hence equal prize money simply isn't justified IMO.
Ok so I took your view and did some research.I think a subsequent post has said something along the lines of giving male and female tennis players equal prize money is like having the same reward for winning both the Premier League and League 1 and that's my view I'm afraid; as a product the women's game is not at the same level as the men's and hence equal prize money simply isn't justified IMO.
In the US more people watched Serena v Sharapova French Open final compared to Nadal v Ferrer. More people also watched the womens US Open final compared to the mens. Both of these are for 2014, I can't find the 2015 figures.
So it's clear, in these events the women should have got paid more right?
The Premier League v League 1 comparison is valid how? The women are the best in the world at their sport just like the men are, the comparison would be Premier League v La Liga or something like that.
I think you'll probably find more seeds losing in the womens side during this Wimbledon to date than mens, the record set by the top few men by reaching the final stages slam after slam is impressive but somehow the top few women doing it shows a lack of depth?
Edited by Babw on Thursday 2nd July 23:07
Edited by Babw on Thursday 2nd July 23:08
Babw said:
Ok so I took your view and did some research.
In the US more people watched Serena v Sharapova French Open final compared to Nadal v Ferrer. More people also watched the womens US Open final compared to the mens. Both of these are for 2014, I can't find the 2015 figures.
So it's clear, in these events the women should have got paid more right?
Might that have been because there were no Americans in the men's final? And possibly all the Merkuns were in church on the Sunday... In the US more people watched Serena v Sharapova French Open final compared to Nadal v Ferrer. More people also watched the womens US Open final compared to the mens. Both of these are for 2014, I can't find the 2015 figures.
So it's clear, in these events the women should have got paid more right?
Anyway that's not comparing apples and apples.
Generally, women's sport is f
king gash. To ask another question: is it fair that the finest athletes in the world (the men) should effectively subsidise the women?Babw said:
Ok so I took your view and did some research.
In the US more people watched Serena v Sharapova French Open final compared to Nadal v Ferrer. More people also watched the womens US Open final compared to the mens. Both of these are for 2014, I can't find the 2015 figures.
So it's clear, in these events the women should have got paid more right?
The Premier League v League 1 comparison is valid how? The women are the best in the world at their sport just like the men are, the comparison would be Premier League v La Liga or something like that.
I think you'll probably find more seeds losing in the womens side during this Wimbledon to date than mens, the record set by the top few men by reaching the final stages slam after slam is impressive but somehow the top few women doing it shows a lack of depth?
Not sure that US TV audiences for a couple of matches is necessarily a very scientific way of measuring the overall attractiveness or commercial worth of the sport; having done a quick bit of research of my own it would appear that the revenue generated by the ATP Tour is around 50% higher than that generated by the WTA Tour and personally I think that's a rather more telling statistic! However, if you want something anecdotal, I've been lucky enough to get centre court tickets for Wimbledon several times over the last few years and on a couple occasions we've gone in the first week where typically the schedule has been a men's singles followed by a women's singles then another men's match. It was interesting that both times the seats were pretty much full for the first match, then there was a mass exodus before the women's match with people drifting back for the second men's match later on. Obviously part of the reason for people leaving after the first match was to have comfort breaks, stretch legs, get something to eat/drink, etc, but there was also definitely an element of people preferring to watch tennis on the outside courts for an hour or two rather than sit through the women's match (and that despite the fact that being on centre court the women's matches featured at least one of the top players). In the US more people watched Serena v Sharapova French Open final compared to Nadal v Ferrer. More people also watched the womens US Open final compared to the mens. Both of these are for 2014, I can't find the 2015 figures.
So it's clear, in these events the women should have got paid more right?
The Premier League v League 1 comparison is valid how? The women are the best in the world at their sport just like the men are, the comparison would be Premier League v La Liga or something like that.
I think you'll probably find more seeds losing in the womens side during this Wimbledon to date than mens, the record set by the top few men by reaching the final stages slam after slam is impressive but somehow the top few women doing it shows a lack of depth?
I stand by my comment about the general lack of strength in depth in the women's game and in last week's Sunday Times there were a couple of articles (one by Chris Evert) which bemoaned the absence of any real rivalries and made reference to the number of major women's finals which have been non-events in recent years. In her article Chris Evert also accepted that it was difficult to position the women's game in a positive light relative to the men's so if someone of her standing and gravitas is conceding that don't you think there might be an element of truth in it? I suppose you could argue that that's just a product of the players that happen to be around at the moment but it feels like it's been that way for an awful long time now!
I think people like Billie Jean King did a fantastic job for women's tennis but for me equal prize money with the men was a step too far and frankly they got away with one there; however, as I said in my initial post, the genie's out of the bottle and I'm sure nobody will have the stomach for the fight to try to put it back (and hence in all probability it is what it is). Probably a more realistic debate to be had is how the prize money cake is distributed across the professionals who play the game; the top players will always get the most (and rightly so) but it doesn't feel right to me that only a relatively small number are able to make a decent living at the game. Anyone who's good enough to make the main draw at a Grand Slam must be an extremely good player yet the reward for someone at say number 100 in the world probably isn't that great by the time you've allowed for travel expenses, coaching fees, etc. Maybe that's something that needs to be looked at if a healthy tour is to be maintained going forward?
Women's sport gets far less coverage than it deserves and the same with the players.
Take England Cricket Captain Charlotte Edwards. She has captained England over 200 times, more than any other English captain male or female. She was the first cricketer in the world, male or female to pass 2,000 runs in T20, she is England's highest ODI run scorer, male or female she has made more appearances than any other female cricketer and is England's all time run scorer.
Those stats speak for themselves, yet I doubt many people would recognise her name. We need to do more to promote Women's sport, which, in turn will encourage more girls and women to take part and go on to improve the standards.
Take England Cricket Captain Charlotte Edwards. She has captained England over 200 times, more than any other English captain male or female. She was the first cricketer in the world, male or female to pass 2,000 runs in T20, she is England's highest ODI run scorer, male or female she has made more appearances than any other female cricketer and is England's all time run scorer.
Those stats speak for themselves, yet I doubt many people would recognise her name. We need to do more to promote Women's sport, which, in turn will encourage more girls and women to take part and go on to improve the standards.
simoid said:
Generally, women's sport is fking gash. To ask another question: is it fair that the finest athletes in the world (the men) should effectively subsidise the women?
The women's prizes were raised to match the men's, the finest athletes in the world will earn the same as they would have had the equal prizes not been introduced.king gash. To ask another question: is it fair that the finest athletes in the world (the men) should effectively subsidise the women?No is the answer to your question though.
Asterix said:
Spiffing said:
Asterix said:
Mud and bikinis.
I'd watch.
I'd watch.
Smilies attached just in case.
Spiffing said:
Asterix said:
Spiffing said:
Asterix said:
Mud and bikinis.
I'd watch.
I'd watch.
Smilies attached just in case.
Dr Murdoch said:
And there is the answer, they could, they would, but they're not allowed.
Obviously the organisers 'could' scrap a round, but choose not to.
Not convinced they could actually, not without ditching the doubles or something. It is not uncommon for players to have to play back to back matches due to scheduling issues as it is... if they increased the length of the women's matches by 2/3 it would fObviously the organisers 'could' scrap a round, but choose not to.
k up the scheduling totally. As for the previous poster saying the players should get less of a cut...... I can't agree there. They provide the show but already get a tiny cut of what the GS events make over the 2 week period.
LocoCoco said:
simoid said:
Generally, women's sport is fking gash. To ask another question: is it fair that the finest athletes in the world (the men) should effectively subsidise the women?
The women's prizes were raised to match the men's, the finest athletes in the world will earn the same as they would have had the equal prizes not been introduced.king gash. To ask another question: is it fair that the finest athletes in the world (the men) should effectively subsidise the women?No is the answer to your question though.
VolvoT5 said:
Seeing matches like Watson Vs Williams today......... how can anyone say that isn't worth at least the same pay as watching Djokovic drill the 27th seed 3, 3 & 3?
Because it happens so rarely in the woman's game. I can't remember the last time I saw a women's match that good.I didn't enjoy it personally. It reminded me of the Welsh crowd going over the top nuts every time Shane Williams touched the ball on his own try line as if he was guaranteed to run the length of the pitch and score. Just seemed a battle in Serena's head to me which as much as I'm no fan of her seemed a little unfair against that crowd.
The prize is not how many set they can complete before passing in out of exaustion, it is who is the best of the best in the world. The number of sets are set (sorry for pun) on a sensible number so a winner can be found and fair a competiton is made! To have 5 sets for women would be unreasonable. A fair few people say it is unfair on sponser is a wierd one!
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff