The Tennis Thread
Discussion
Jarcy said:
Interesting that Head appear to be standing by her until it's established whether or not she has cheated.
Maybe they're going to stand by her regardless..
Certainly seems so at the moment as they're now questioning Wada's decision to place Meldonium on the banned substance list (they're suggesting there should be a limit on the dosage that can be taken but not a complete ban on its use). Potentially puts them at odds with Andy Murray's view and personally I'm with Muzza; besides, never liked Head rackets anyway! Maybe they're going to stand by her regardless..
Edited by Jarcy on Friday 11th March 11:14
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I was typing with tongue ever so slightly in cheek! I don't think Murray is suddenly going to switch frames over this but having said that he'd already described Head's initial support of Sharapova as "strange" and now they've taken that support one stage further it will be interesting to see if he has anything further to say on the subject; I suspect he might but may choose to have the conversation with Head in private and hence we'll never get to know...anonymous said:
[redacted]
There is a drugs test which should be able to work out a minimum dose, if this doesnt match her disclosed dose then there could be trouble.The other thing is this isnt licenced for use or import into USA is it? Isnt that where she has been living for 22 years? If she has a medical condition it should be treated with drugs sourced in the country she lives in, questions will be asked on how she got hold of it.
I found this quite amusing, bearing in mind that it was written a few weeks before Sharapova was caught doping...
the secret pro said:
Welcome to the new season. And what a magnificent start we’re off to. Great to see we’re all doing our part to uphold the dignity of this wonderful sport.
My God, excuse my French but I have to say there are complete d
heads who really do their part to ruin a wonderful sport.
Top honours go to the twit who tested positive for a drug 99% of the world has never heard of. It’s a drug that is only made in his neck of the woods, and was just added to the banned substances list on January 1. He’s obviously been on it for years, and was stupid enough to not check if it was ever going to be banned.
Let’s remember: they only ban drugs that actually help your performance, so, yes, you’re cheating if you take them. You’re a cheater. Goodbye.
See: The Secret ProMy God, excuse my French but I have to say there are complete d
heads who really do their part to ruin a wonderful sport.Top honours go to the twit who tested positive for a drug 99% of the world has never heard of. It’s a drug that is only made in his neck of the woods, and was just added to the banned substances list on January 1. He’s obviously been on it for years, and was stupid enough to not check if it was ever going to be banned.
Let’s remember: they only ban drugs that actually help your performance, so, yes, you’re cheating if you take them. You’re a cheater. Goodbye.
Edited by jesusbuiltmycar on Tuesday 15th March 11:43
BBC: The gambler and the top-50 tennis players
Hmm.. there are a few horsey characters that come to mind..
Hmm.. there are a few horsey characters that come to mind..
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35859791
I've never agreed with equal pay in tennis as even early stage matches on the men's tour are of a far higher quality. Men's doubles even more so but get far less coverage. Much like the fashion world, whoever people are paying to see and whoever sponsors want to back should get the most. I never hear women complaining about their $25m+ annual income in the fashion world while their counterparts (only a few at the few top at that) will scrape $1m in a very good year. It is just accepted that the demand is for the women and that's all there is to it.
I've never agreed with equal pay in tennis as even early stage matches on the men's tour are of a far higher quality. Men's doubles even more so but get far less coverage. Much like the fashion world, whoever people are paying to see and whoever sponsors want to back should get the most. I never hear women complaining about their $25m+ annual income in the fashion world while their counterparts (only a few at the few top at that) will scrape $1m in a very good year. It is just accepted that the demand is for the women and that's all there is to it.
Justices said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35859791
I've never agreed with equal pay in tennis as even early stage matches on the men's tour are of a far higher quality. Men's doubles even more so but get far less coverage. Much like the fashion world, whoever people are paying to see and whoever sponsors want to back should get the most. I never hear women complaining about their $25m+ annual income in the fashion world while their counterparts (only a few at the few top at that) will scrape $1m in a very good year. It is just accepted that the demand is for the women and that's all there is to it.
Seem to remember there being some heated discussion about this on here a year or two back! I don't agree with equal prize money either as the women's game is far less of a draw than the men's and therefore they just don't deserve an equal share of the cake IMO; commercially they bring far less to the table so why should they enjoy the same level of reward in terms of prize money? However, whenever this debate rears its head it just makes me reflect on what an incredible job people like Billie Jean King did when they somehow managed to convince the authorities that equal prize money was appropriate - with negotiation skills like that she should have been Secretary General of the United Nations!!I've never agreed with equal pay in tennis as even early stage matches on the men's tour are of a far higher quality. Men's doubles even more so but get far less coverage. Much like the fashion world, whoever people are paying to see and whoever sponsors want to back should get the most. I never hear women complaining about their $25m+ annual income in the fashion world while their counterparts (only a few at the few top at that) will scrape $1m in a very good year. It is just accepted that the demand is for the women and that's all there is to it.
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
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
Justices said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35859791
I've never agreed with equal pay in tennis as even early stage matches on the men's tour are of a far higher quality. Men's doubles even more so but get far less coverage. Much like the fashion world, whoever people are paying to see and whoever sponsors want to back should get the most. I never hear women complaining about their $25m+ annual income in the fashion world while their counterparts (only a few at the few top at that) will scrape $1m in a very good year. It is just accepted that the demand is for the women and that's all there is to it.
Quite. Same with porn actors/actresses. I've never agreed with equal pay in tennis as even early stage matches on the men's tour are of a far higher quality. Men's doubles even more so but get far less coverage. Much like the fashion world, whoever people are paying to see and whoever sponsors want to back should get the most. I never hear women complaining about their $25m+ annual income in the fashion world while their counterparts (only a few at the few top at that) will scrape $1m in a very good year. It is just accepted that the demand is for the women and that's all there is to it.
jonby said:
Justices said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35859791
I've never agreed with equal pay in tennis as even early stage matches on the men's tour are of a far higher quality. Men's doubles even more so but get far less coverage. Much like the fashion world, whoever people are paying to see and whoever sponsors want to back should get the most. I never hear women complaining about their $25m+ annual income in the fashion world while their counterparts (only a few at the few top at that) will scrape $1m in a very good year. It is just accepted that the demand is for the women and that's all there is to it.
Quite. Same with porn actors/actresses. I've never agreed with equal pay in tennis as even early stage matches on the men's tour are of a far higher quality. Men's doubles even more so but get far less coverage. Much like the fashion world, whoever people are paying to see and whoever sponsors want to back should get the most. I never hear women complaining about their $25m+ annual income in the fashion world while their counterparts (only a few at the few top at that) will scrape $1m in a very good year. It is just accepted that the demand is for the women and that's all there is to it.
....deftly slipped in there, sirMoving on...why anyone gets paid more than peanuts for playing bat and ball, and why anyone can be bothered to actually watch it, let alone pay to watch it, is one of the great mysteries of all time...plonk, plonk, plonk, plonk, oh...a pigeon on the ground, let's laugh hysterically and wet our thongs....
Truly amazing.....
jonby said:
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
Errm-you're totally wrong, it's prize money-they are paid that solely for their achievement in winning the tournament!!If they are more popular and more of a draw they leverage that in personal sponsorship deals-as you've pointed out.
If it's purely popularity maybe Novak would like to be paid less for winning the us open where the women's final sold out faster than the men's? Or maybe he would like to accept less prize money than roger federer based on the fact that federer has 14.5 million Facebook likes and he has 6.5 million?
mybrainhurts said:
Moving on...why anyone gets paid more than peanuts for playing bat and ball, and why anyone can be bothered to actually watch it, let alone pay to watch it, is one of the great mysteries of all time...plonk, plonk, plonk, plonk, oh...a pigeon on the ground, let's laugh hysterically and wet our thongs....
Truly amazing.....
If that's how you feel about tennis - and you're entitled to your opinion - I'm surprised you can even be bothered to look at this thread never mind post on it!Truly amazing.....
JNW1 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Moving on...why anyone gets paid more than peanuts for playing bat and ball, and why anyone can be bothered to actually watch it, let alone pay to watch it, is one of the great mysteries of all time...plonk, plonk, plonk, plonk, oh...a pigeon on the ground, let's laugh hysterically and wet our thongs....
Truly amazing.....
If that's how you feel about tennis - and you're entitled to your opinion - I'm surprised you can even be bothered to look at this thread never mind post on it!Truly amazing.....
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff