stripeyshark
All-Time Best Defence
- Dec 20, 2011
- 2,294
What prize money should women get if men get £1.6m?
Poll should say "SHOULD"!!!
Poll should say "SHOULD"!!!
Last edited:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Prize Money At Wimbledon (A Poll)
- Thread starter stripeyshark
- Start date
JamesAndTheGiantHead
Well-known member
Work out the average time of a woman's final and compare it to a men's final and pay the same per minute played. Boom.
stripeyshark
All-Time Best Defence
- Dec 20, 2011
- 2,294
- Thread starter
- #3
This would be fair, but you'd get some suspiciously long finals! What would your fixed amount be, based on the men's prize?
JamesAndTheGiantHead
Well-known member
I've no idea. You can build hospitals and bankroll entire countries for what we pay some sports stars, but a million seems about right to me. Enough to be an impressive figure, without being obscene.
dougdeep
New member
They've only recently made them equal. Some people have said that women should play 5 sets to make it equal but would you really want to watch that?
Mo Gosfield
Well-known member
- Aug 11, 2010
- 6,284
I've felt for a long time that women should play 5 sets. It gives someone the chance to recover from 2 sets down. Who is to say that Sabine Lisicki wouldn't have recovered that final v Marion Bartoli...although losing, she finished strongly.
The girls would have to work harder on their fitness and train for 2-3 hour games. At the moment you see some wilting in the second set and you think...for gods sake..get fit!!!
Billie Jean and her team moved heaven and earth to get equality but most of us feel that the womens game leaves us short changed.
The girls would have to work harder on their fitness and train for 2-3 hour games. At the moment you see some wilting in the second set and you think...for gods sake..get fit!!!
Billie Jean and her team moved heaven and earth to get equality but most of us feel that the womens game leaves us short changed.
desprateseagull
New member
same money, for same sets..
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
The prize money is the same. Why anyone would want to make the chauvinistic argument that Wimbledon should change its policy, in this day and age, is beyond me.
The prize money should be the same, but as stated by others above, they should play (best of) 5 sets, as the men do. Only expecting them to be physically fit enough to play for an hour or so, is in itself chauvinistic and patronising.
Trying to win a major tennis tournament should be a test of endurance and physical conditionning, as well as skill, technique and mental strength. For the women it simply isn't.
Gullflyinghigh
Registered User
- Apr 23, 2012
- 4,279
Because whilst the prize money may be the same the physical endevour required isn't.
It feels more sexist to say that women can't handle 5 sets than it does suggesting that they should be paid less.
fruitnveg
Well-known member
£1,600,000.00 / 5(sets) = £320,000.00
£320,000.00 * 3(sets) = £960,000.00
's only fair, lazy girls.
£320,000.00 * 3(sets) = £960,000.00
's only fair, lazy girls.
terryberry1
Well-known member
Mens amount seems fair to me. Women should get around 10k and a spa day
Djmiles
Barndoor Holroyd
If they want the same prize money then perhaps they should start playing 5 sets. Why do they only play 3 sets anyway? Woman play 90 minutes in football, bat and bowl the same in cricket and run the same lengths in marathons, so why is it different for tennis?
Along the same lines - My daughter asked me how much the winner gets and if its the same for the men and women. This then led onto a wider discussion about women's sport and what other (if there is) professional sport where there is financial equality for both men and women. Indeed I couldn't come up with another professional sport for women that really has mass appeal.
BensGrandad
New member
3/5 ths of the mens prize money as they play best of 3 sets. Men play best of 5 so no way should they get the same.
Postman Pat
Well-known member
Don't think the debate should be about the prize money, but about the amount of sets played.
I think the mens should be reduced to best of 3 sets to the semi-finals, then both men and womens semi & final should be best of 5. Would reduce the injuries and ensure the players stay fresh for the later rounds. Plus with best of three there is actually more chance of upsets in the earlier rounds (although this year was pretty surprising!).
If they want the same money they should play the same amount of time.
I think the mens should be reduced to best of 3 sets to the semi-finals, then both men and womens semi & final should be best of 5. Would reduce the injuries and ensure the players stay fresh for the later rounds. Plus with best of three there is actually more chance of upsets in the earlier rounds (although this year was pretty surprising!).
If they want the same money they should play the same amount of time.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
The indisputable fact is, worldwide, the mens final will attract a greater audience than the women's final. Therefore the sponsorship, tv rights, etc. etc. will be greater for the mens than it is the women's. Therefore the men have technically earned the game more that the women even before they walk on court. This is a harsh fact of life, regardless of whether you analysis no. of sets.
To be fair, if the women's prize money simply came down to sets, they'd have long ago lobbied to play their matches to best of 5!
To be fair, if the women's prize money simply came down to sets, they'd have long ago lobbied to play their matches to best of 5!