Equal prize money at Wimbledon.

[SeagullSi]

Do you think its fair. Both the mens and womens winners this year are getting 1 million quid. This comment from murray today makes me think its unjust. If there is such a great difference in standard there should be a different pay structure

BBC Sport - Tennis - Andy Murray calls McEnroe and Henman

 

[Acker79]

I find it more unjust that women get paid the same when they on play three set games as opposed to the men's 5. I'm not sure I'm enough of a connoisseur of tennis to notice the difference in quality.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

I'd love to see Serena Williams BATTER him in a game

 

[Frutos]

If the women want equal pay that's totally fair enough, but they should play 5 set matches too.

 

[Conkers]

3 pages

 

[Colossal Squid]

If the women want equal pay that's totally fair enough, but they should play 5 set matches too.

Well that's the meat of it there.

It's a bit like saying men work a 35 hour week whilst the women do 22 for the same pay.

Mind you I always thought it unfair that men were expected to retire later than women despite statistically not living as long. Not that it matters anymore being as retirement age will cease to exist in a few years

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Not fair in the slightest. There is such a disparity in the different games. Latter stage women tend to breeze through the early stages with games lasting no more than one hour.

The standard of tennis has declined since balls got faster, rackets got stronger and women morphed into men.

Bring back wooden rackets and rein in the obscene wage levels.

 

[Was not Was]

It strikes me that the 'equal pay if they play five sets' argument is dodgy. No other sport links length of match to prize money (does it?). Sounds to me like a way of finding a rationale for paying women less, along the lines of:

"I'm generally comfortable with men being paid more than women.
So what's the main substantive difference between men's and women's tennis?
Ah, match length. In that case, women should be paid less because the matches are shorter ..."

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It strikes me that the 'equal pay if they play five sets' argument is dodgy. No other sport links length of match to prize money (does it?). Sounds to me like a way of finding a rationale for paying women less, along the lines of:

"I'm generally comfortable with men being paid more than women.
So what's the main substantive difference between men's and women's tennis?
Ah, match length. In that case, women should be paid less because the matches are shorter ..."

Women get paid less in every other sport, I am sure (excluding endorsements). However, tennis is the real acid test as it is far more high profile and more popular than any other female sport.

 

[MORTY]

Women get paid less in every other sport, I am sure.

Netball?

 

[Giraffe]

I hate to see women paid the same as men, they have one place in life and that is in the kitchen

 

[patchamalbion]

its a DISGRACE in my book! just look at the individual players routes to the final and how many hours they have played! if the women played 5 sets you couldn;t argue but they dont. In the early round the high seeds cruise through matchs in 40 minutes whilst most mens matches take 2 hours+

 

[Spider]

Don't forget that in any sport it's not just the time on the court that you're being paid for! It's also the fact that you have spent most of your life training hard and work in between tournaments keeping fit and improving tennis.

Having said that, it is silly that they are paid the same. Especially because the women's game is so bad at the moment without any bankable 'stars' other than the Williams sisters - the idea of some of those players and the world class quality (or lac of it) they bring to the tournament being paid the same amount as the mens game is prety distressing!

 

[Beach Hut]

Nothing wrong with this as the Williams brothers deserve equal pay

 

[Colossal Squid]

Don't forget that in any sport it's not just the time on the court that you're being paid for! It's also the fact that you have spent most of your life training hard and work in between tournaments keeping fit and improving tennis.

Having said that, it is silly that they are paid the same. Especially because the women's game is so bad at the moment without any bankable 'stars' other than the Williams sisters - the idea of some of those players and the world class quality (or lac of it) they bring to the tournament being paid the same amount as the mens game is prety distressing!

Having said that, it WILL be one of the Williams sisters who wins the womens trophy again AND being as they are basically men with muffs (I assume at least) you can't argue that much in that sense.

Maybe they should just enter Venus and Serena in with the men and lower the prize for the rest of the ladies, making the game more interesting as at least somebody else will win

 

[Durlston]

John Isner and Nicolas Mahut should have been asked immediately after their match if it was fair. They've had houses built in the time they were on court!

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

Don't forget that in any sport it's not just the time on the court that you're being paid for! It's also the fact that you have spent most of your life training hard and work in between tournaments keeping fit and improving tennis.

Having said that, it is silly that they are paid the same. Especially because the women's game is so bad at the moment without any bankable 'stars' other than the Williams sisters - the idea of some of those players and the world class quality (or lac of it) they bring to the tournament being paid the same amount as the mens game is prety distressing!

For me, your second point is what it all boils down to. The amount of prize money should be related to the amount of interest in the tournament generated by the players, as that's the commercial reality of professional sport. That's why women's golf events have less prize money than men's, despite them both being played over 72 holes.

I don't really get the best of 3 vs 5 set argument...afterall, no one is seriously saying that the men's doubles event deserves more prize money than the women's singles, even though they play five sets too. Or should the winner of the men's event get more money if they were taken to five sets in a few of the rounds, as opposed to winning each match in straight sets

 

[Napper]

No one really cares about womens sport so no , not fair

 

[desprateseagull]

does seem odd, men having to (potentially) play more sets, for the same £££.

make it 3 sets for both, with a maximum games per set limit (that marathon match was just stupid!),,

then penalties..



and why dont they have mixed singles?? i wouldnt mind swapping shirts at the end, with Anna K..

 

[nwgull]

It's not even about the length of the matches for me, but more the standard of play, athleticism and exciting rallies. I just can't get into watching a women's match in the same way unless I fancy one of the players.