Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Other Sport] 'Equal' pay at Wimbledon



Beach Seagull

New member
Jan 2, 2010
1,310
Not a great follower of tennis, but I see the men's and women's get the same prize money to be 'equal'. But the men play more games to win the tournament so that means the women are paid more? How can that be 'equal'. Surely the prize money distribution should be based on ££ per game? Also the men's game is a bigger draw I guarantee a tout will get more for a men's final ticket than he will for a women's final ticket.
 




jonny.rainbow

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2005
6,576
If women played an equal amount (i.e. five set matches) then Grand Slams would have to be a week longer.
 




Eeyore

Lord Donkey of Queen's Park
NSC Patreon
Apr 5, 2014
23,378
Not a great follower of tennis, but I see the men's and women's get the same prize money to be 'equal'. But the men play more games to win the tournament so that means the women are paid more? How can that be 'equal'. Surely the prize money distribution should be based on ££ per game? Also the men's game is a bigger draw I guarantee a tout will get more for a men's final ticket than he will for a women's final ticket.

Yes, but tennis receives no money from touts.

The tournament is based on a packaged appeal. Folk watch women's tennis as well as men's. It's not like football. I don't think equal prize money is an issue.
 






Beach Seagull

New member
Jan 2, 2010
1,310
Yes, but tennis receives no money from touts.

The tournament is based on a packaged appeal. Folk watch women's tennis as well as men's. It's not like football. I don't think equal prize money is an issue.

Thats my point it isn't equal. Per game the birds get more.
 


Sussex Nomad

Well-known member
Aug 26, 2010
18,185
EP
it's not equal at all, massively in favour of women. If I worked 50 hours a week to recieve the same as a woman working 30 hours a week, in the same job, I'd be pretty pissed off.
 




Beach Seagull

New member
Jan 2, 2010
1,310
If women played an equal amount (i.e. five set matches) then Grand Slams would have to be a week longer.

Well so be it. The women earn more per game that ain't right. If was other way round would be all sorts of rug munchers demanding 'equality' and threatening 'boycotts' of wimbledon.
 


Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
Whatever the merits of the sexes and tennis, I really, really enjoyed seeing Williams get duffed up today.

Me too but I have to say that she was very gracious in defeat. Halep is a bit of a card, I enjoyed her post match interview more than any I can remember.
 


Eeyore

Lord Donkey of Queen's Park
NSC Patreon
Apr 5, 2014
23,378
Thats my point it isn't equal. Per game the birds get more.

Yes. But it's not just about the amount of games played in a tournament. The training and preparation is 95% of the work they do. That's the consideration.
 






dangull

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2013
5,105
I think the women are more interested in the men's final anyway. In fact, if they are in the kitchen cooking meals, there more than happy anyway.
 


Sussex Nomad

Well-known member
Aug 26, 2010
18,185
EP
Yes. But it's not just about the amount of games played in a tournament. The training and preparation is 95% of the work they do. That's the consideration.

Is it? 95%? Did you pluck that little stat out of thin air? With tournaments taking place week in and week out for most of the year, training is generally done at the office, or the court in this case.
 




Beach Seagull

New member
Jan 2, 2010
1,310
Whats really amusing is the total absence here of the NSC 'trendy liberal elite' they are usually all other threads like this condemning people like me as 'sexist dinosaurs' whilst showcasing their 'oh so right on credentials' but I guess they've done the maths and thought 'yeah he is right I'll duck out of this one'. If I was to start a 'women's football is rubbish' thread they would drop their craft beer stop stroking their beards and bash me with the guardian.
 




Luke93

STAND OR FALL
Jun 23, 2013
5,028
Shoreham
care to elaborate?

My comment was in reference to John McEnroe... most tennis fans should spot that.

Tennis fans would also agree that the money raised by Wimbledon which is payable to the players is the result of the whole event. That’s men, women and mixed doubles. Does the length of the game matter? Using that logic, a round 1 game that lasts 4 hours should be ‘worth more’ than a final that lasts 1.5 hours. That’s not how it works. It’s prize money depending on how far a player can go. There should be no discrepancy based on gender. Let’s hope the rest of our society catches up.
 


Sussex Nomad

Well-known member
Aug 26, 2010
18,185
EP
My comment was in reference to John McEnroe... most tennis fans should spot that.

Tennis fans would also agree that the money raised by Wimbledon which is payable to the players is the result of the whole event. That’s men, women and mixed doubles. Does the length of the game matter? Using that logic, a round 1 game that lasts 4 hours should be ‘worth more’ than a final that lasts 1.5 hours. That’s not how it works. It’s prize money depending on how far a player can go. There should be no discrepancy based on gender. Let’s hope the rest of our society catches up.

So you would happily work 50 hours to earn what a woman earns in 30 then.
 






Luke93

STAND OR FALL
Jun 23, 2013
5,028
Shoreham
So you would happily work 50 hours to earn what a woman earns in 30 then.

If it was prize money for a sport, for the same round number, at the same venue, being broadcast through the same media outlets, then yes. Absolutely.

I’ll go back to my previous point. Should we start paying tennis players who feature in 4 hour round 1 thrillers more than a 1.5 hour finalist? I prefer this perfectly logical format which is already in place.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here