Search results

Yes. Eh?

You're being silly. For a start, players do get win bonuses, promotion bonuses, and bonuses related to how high up the table they finish. And if they tend to win games, they're likely to get an increase in wages. The simple point is that the pay of sportsmen (inc women) is based on providing...

You said they are paid a rate commensurate with their achievement, and I was just explaining how that was wrong. But the money paid comes from how much entertainment is provided. Sure you could have a dull match, and they'd still get paid, but if all the matches were crap, people would stop...

No they aren't paid a rate in line with their achievement. If they were, women's footballers would get as much as men. They're paid in line with the amount of money the tournaments make, from ticket sales, TV rights, advertising etc. If the players were on court for 30 minutes each, you wouldn't...

No, I'd suggest their pay is less than the men's because they play less and if they want to get paid as much then they'll need to play as much, and they can ask to play more if that's what they want. Just like women's football. And the rule I'd give to them is that they can either have less...

Well I guess they could campaign to play 5 sets like the men, I don't think there'd be much opposition. I expect they'd rather just play a couple of sets and take it easy though, and get the same money. See above. If they asked to be allowed to play best of 5, they'd be allowed to.

That's ****ing stupid. They've gone the same distance, put in the same work. With your logic the women's matches could be best of 3 games, tie break if it's 1-1, and they should get paid the same. I don't disagree with that, it's just hard to work out.

It's wrong that they get the same, despite the fact that the matches are different lengths, meaning they provide different levels of entertainment. In tournaments where both men and women play best of 3 sets, they should get the same pay.