Equal pay in tennis

[matthew]

I rarely tune in to watch a woman's match so I think Djokovic has a point...


“Obviously it’s a very delicate situation. Women deserve respect and admiration for what they are doing. You know, equal prize money was the main subject of the tennis world in the last seven, eight years. I have been through that process as well so I understand how much power and energy WTA and all the advocates for equal prize money have invested in order to reach that.

“I applaud them for that, I honestly do. They fought for what they deserve and they got it. On the other hand I think that our men’s tennis world, ATP world, should fight for more because the stats are showing that we have much more spectators on the men’s tennis matches. I think that’s one of the reasons why maybe we should get awarded more. Women should fight for what they think they deserve and we should fight for what we think we deserve."

 

[Wellesley]

If women are playing best of three sets and the men are playing best of five, if you believe in equality, you would agree that the men should be paid more. Not that I really give a shit about the poor darlings.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Do they not get paid enough already then?

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

 

[Gazwag]

Equal pay in the non-grand slam events where it is best of 3 sets for both sexes, however, in grand slam events a long ladies match is 2 hours, a long men's match is 4 hours - so equal pay is fine but men would earn double, just like the real world where like for like workers who work twice as long get twice the pay.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Audience figures and income generation, etc... should play a part in deciding prize money, not gender

Should the players in the top flight of English women's football get paid the same as their male counterparts on the grounds of equality?

And if not just focusing on gender, should the top flight teams of Albania or Latvia get paid the same as players plying their trade in the Premier League on the grounds of equality?

 

[crodonilson]

Greedy fuxkers. Wimbledon this year the winners will get £2.15m each, forgert all of the sponsorships and endorsements that the players get but that's for 2 weeks work. Even the first round losers will get £30,000 each which could be for about 40 minutes work in the case of the women.

 

[Was not Was]

If women are playing best of three sets and the men are playing best of five, if you believe in equality, you would agree that the men should be paid more. Not that I really give a shit about the poor darlings.

Djokovic's view is valid (though I suspect I wouldn't agree if I gave a monkey's about tennis, as it seems short-sighted). But the 'length of match' argument is flawed; by this logic, you'd pay someone less for winning in straight sets than in a three or five set nailbiter.

 

[Nathan]

He has a point, Mens tennis is more entertaining and they play best of 5 sets, the women best of 3. But they get paid shit loads anyway, and I am sure the men get more from sponsorship and branding opportunities, so they do make more money. Djokovic is 28 years old and has made $48m.

 

[dazzer6666]

It's an extension of the usual 'equal pay' stuff..........but tennis is a bit different from a manager's job in industry for example (where all this fuss started). Not sure the 5 sets vs 3 sets arguments works though (if so, could argue male elite marathon runners should be paid less than women because they're not out as long ?), would say it's more about market forces. There were some stats showing TV audiences for the men's games are a lot higher....more popular, more advertising revenue, more prize money I guess.

 

[brightn'ove]

Can't say I really give a shit.

They're both playing for the same prize, winning the tournament. Winning the tournament should yield the same prize money. It's the competition that decides whether they play 3 or 5 sets, reducing the women's prize money based on the amount of sets played would hardly be 'fair' because they can't CHOOSE to play best of 5 can they?

Not that it even matters in the long run as Djokovic et al make far more than the female tennis players in sponsorship and the like anyway.

 

[Triggaaar]

But the 'length of match' argument is flawed; by this logic, you'd pay someone less for winning in straight sets than in a three or five set nailbiter./QUOTE]It's not flawed, of course some matches last longer than others, but it averages out. For men it averages out as a lot more time than it does for women, because they're playing different rules (you have to win more sets).

People paying to watch a day's tennis could see 2 or 3 men's games, or 5 women's games, so the money should be split between more women. Same for TV rights.

I obviously don't apply that to tournaments where men play best of 3. I can't see why women can't play best of 5 at grand slam events, then they'll have earned the money. It's not like other sports have women do half a job. Women's marathons aren't just 13 miles are they?

 

[Triggaaar]

Not sure the 5 sets vs 3 sets arguments works though (if so, could argue male elite marathon runners should be paid less than women because they're not out as long ?)

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.

would say it's more about market forces. There were some stats showing TV audiences for the men's games are a lot higher....more popular, more advertising revenue, more prize money I guess.

I don't disagree with that, it's just hard to work out.

 

[brightn'ove]

I obviously don't apply that to tournaments where men play best of 3. I can't see why women can't play best of 5 at grand slam events, then they'll have earned the money. It's not like other sports have women do half a job. Women's marathons aren't just 13 miles are they?

You're saying that like they lazily rock up at Wimbledon and refuse to play best of 5 ... When in reality those are the rules that are imposed on them.

How do you propose they EARN their money if they aren't allowed to?

 

[Triggaaar]

They're both playing for the same prize, winning the tournament. Winning the tournament should yield the same prize money. It's the competition that decides whether they play 3 or 5 sets, reducing the women's prize money based on the amount of sets played would hardly be 'fair' because they can't CHOOSE to play best of 5 can they?

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.

You're saying that like they lazily rock up at Wimbledon and refuse to play best of 5 ... When in reality those are the rules that are imposed on them.

How do you propose they EARN their money if they aren't allowed to?

See above. If they asked to be allowed to play best of 5, they'd be allowed to.

 

[sydney]

i only watch women's tennis on the off chance there will be a decent gusset shot.........

 

[beorhthelm]

they keep quiet on the details, as i recall the women's games attract significantly less interest with a fraction of viewing figures for the mens. the chap who raised the issue is probably factually correct, that if held alone the womens games wouldn't on their own justify equal prize money.

 

[theroyal]

Greedy fuxkers. Wimbledon this year the winners will get £2.15m each, forgert all of the sponsorships and endorsements that the players get but that's for 2 weeks work. Even the first round losers will get £30,000 each which could be for about 40 minutes work in the case of the women.

Only the top tennis players get huge amounts of money. There are plenty of players in the lower ranks who struggle to get by as you are not earning prize money enough to cover constant flights, equipment (rackets are £100s a pop and they can go through a few in one match), all sorts.

 

[brightn'ove]

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.

Why should it be the responsibility of the players to campaign for that? Out of guilt that they're winning more money per set than their male counterparts?

They both train the same amount, they both work as hard for each tournament, they both play within the rules GIVEN to them. You make it sound like female tennis players are being lazy, which is extremely arrogant.

Perhaps the men should campaign to play fewer sets?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I watch womens tennis when EUGENIE BOUCHARD is on.

She should be the biggest earner in tennis. I've googled her LOADS