Prize Money At Wimbledon (A Poll)

[Tricky Dicky]

In the world that most of us live in you get paid for the hours that you work, and consequently tennis is one of the few areas of human endeavour where women get paid more than men. Fair enough in my book, it's a woman's game after all.

You're only counting time on court - a miniscule portion of their career. They spend their whole lives training just like the men. I'd generally rather watch mens matches though.

 

[SeagullSongs]

£1,600,000.00 / 5(sets) = £320,000.00
£320,000.00 * 3(sets) = £960,000.00

's only fair, lazy girls.

This.

 

[Bold Seagull]

£1,600,000.00 / 5(sets) = £320,000.00
£320,000.00 * 3(sets) = £960,000.00

's only fair, lazy girls.

But Murray won in straight sets, so only played 3. The women's final could have easily gone to 3 sets as well. Would they therefore earn the same?

 

[Brovion]

You're only counting time on court - a miniscule portion of their career. They spend their whole lives training just like the men. I'd generally rather watch mens matches though.

But they're not paid to train. The bit on court is what people watch.

 

[bomber130]

Women only play three sets because they have to rush home and do the house work. It's a no brainer.

 

[Seagrrl]

In the world that most of us live in you get paid for the hours that you work, and consequently tennis is one of the few areas of human endeavour where women get paid more than men. Fair enough in my book, it's a woman's game after all.

Only women generally get paid less for the same number of hours for the same job [/URL] http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20223264

 

[Brovion]

Only women generally get paid less for the same number of hours for the same job [/URL] http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20223264

Yes, that was rather the point I was making. *puzzled*

 

[Berty23]

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.[/

Murray would not have won then.

 

[Nigella's Cream Pie]

Why do the women have their own event?

It's because they would have no chance of getting anywhere in a combined event, which is what there should be if there is to be true equality.

Also to say that if the women played the same number of sets they would deserve the same prize money is like saying everyone's hourly rate should be the same regardless of what they produce - and the men produce a hell of a lot more in terms of entertainment which is what people pay for, it's chalk and cheese.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

It seems many people here resent the fact that women get paid the same as men, and looking for excuses to justify it. Seems strange.

 

[topbanana36]

Prize should be to clean the dishes for the dignitaries and vouchers for some make-up by the looks of this years winner.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

But they're not paid to train. The bit on court is what people watch.

Of course they are. They can't play on court without all the training.

 

[Dr NBC]

"Eighty percent of the top 100 women are fat pigs who don't deserve equal pay."

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

But they're not paid to train. The bit on court is what people watch.

Its a prize for winning a tournament. Its not a salary.

 

[Brovion]

Of course they are. They can't play on court without all the training.

But the training time is irrelevant. It's like sitting an exam, you do the revision you think you need but you don't get any marks for just revising - it's what you do with it that counts. I could practise tennis all day every day for the next year and still not be good enough to earn a penny. Also when you go and see the Albion you don't know if the players have trained all week or had time off - and what's more you don't care. You go and watch 90+ minutes of football. Out of all the arguments for equal pay (and what constitutes equal pay) I find yours the strangest.

 

[teaboy]

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!

Was there lots of courtside advertising for the men's final that wasn't there for the women's final then? And is 'Wimbledon' as a brand seen by advertisers as just men's tennis?

There are plenty of women in the game who want to play 5 sets at the Slams - at the moment it would be logistically difficult to find the additional time in the 2 weeks, especially in an outdoor tournament!

 

[ElectricNaz]

The more prize money they get, the more plastic surgery they can afford, resulting in bigger boobies and prettier faces.

I'm all for a prize money increase, tbh

 

[Dr NBC]

This is a much more nuanced debate than what is being discussed here. There are some who don't think that the women should be payed as much as men because they don't play five set matches. This would be incorrect. Women's tennis, outside of the old Lipton International in Key Biscayne, Florida, is played over 3 sets. This is the way it should be especially with the way women's tennis is played now. Everyone wants to hit 125mph serves and massive forehands. To compete with the Williams sisters, one has had to adopt this power game. I'm not sure that physiology would allow them to play at a consistently high level for five sets when playing this type of power game. All too frequently you see score lines of 2-6, 6-1, 6-0. Someone has come flying out of the gate, only to lose energy, stamina and the match in ignominious fashion. Serves fail, unforced errors mount. The tennis is usually pretty ugly at this point. What would it be like over five sets?

But the bigger question isn't about length of time on court, it is to do with revenue. Whenever you get a ticket for a show court at a Grand Slam you will get three matches, two mens and one ladies. This is the case at all four Slams. Ultimately tournament organizers see the mens game as the bigger draw, otherwise matches on show courts would be more equitable. So by this reasoning, men should receive a higher share of the prize money if it is viewed as revenue as they are the bigger draw at these tournaments. But I do not know if this is fair or right.

I have no strong opinion on whether the prize money should be the same. In terms of revenue generation, the men should get more. But in terms of growing the game amongst women, it should probably be the same.

 

[Acker79]

The women may play fewer sets, but they are objectified and sexualised much more than the men are in an effort to attract more male viewers, since viewers bring in money, surely that balances out the game time?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The women may play fewer sets, but they are objectified and sexualised much more than the men are in an effort to attract more male viewers, since viewers bring in money, surely that balances out the game time?

That's an interesting point, to be fair. Do you actually think that this is actively pushed by the tennis authorities though, or simply a result of peer pressure amongst the players themselves?