What a load of bollocks. Why should they receive the same prize money for playing far less tennis? Not to mention how incredibly innept the majority of female tennis is. Daft buggers 
Equal Pay At Wimbledon
- Thread starter BezsMaracas
- Start date
That's sexist.KaiserSoze666 said:What a load of bollocks. Why should they receive the same prize money for playing far less tennis? Not to mention how incredibly innept the majority of female tennis is. Daft buggers
They should get paid the same because unlike many other sports, Women's tennis is just as captivating as the Men's side. The fact that they play 2 out 3 sets instead of 3 out of 5 is irrelevant. The Women's game is probably more exciting and has more personalities than the Mens. Time for Tennis to recognize this.
What's the difference in prize money at the moment?
Raoul said:
I've heard that said before and I'm not sure I believe it. In the last few years you might be able to make that argument but it doesn't really hold up over any longer period of time. The mens game was much better and had far better personalities up until a few years ago. I'm going to guess that more people would want to watch Sampras, Agassi, Lendal and Becker than Hingis, The Williams sisters and the fat chick (I can't remember her name right now).
Would you expect to get paid the same for working 5 hours as your mate next to you who only works 3? I doubt it.
Men play 7 matches to get to the final not counting qualifying, thats a guaranteed 21 sets up to 35 maximum
Women play 7 matches as well, which can be anything from 14 sets to a maximum 21
So equal pay for the winner is fair?
Men play 7 matches to get to the final not counting qualifying, thats a guaranteed 21 sets up to 35 maximum
Women play 7 matches as well, which can be anything from 14 sets to a maximum 21
So equal pay for the winner is fair?
For me it's not about the amount of hours they work. People make different wages. Some make the same in 4 hours that others make in 2 days. How much revenue is brought in due to the womens game? Is it 50%, doubt it.
Yes thats another aspect of it
Cali Red said:
The Mens gave did have its share of personalities over the years. Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, etc, and its had its share of great players like Borg, Sampras and others - all of them played at different times though, and its so its a bit unfair to compare every big male player to the recent crop of Womens players.
To be fair, the womens game is whats propping tennis up right now. Federer, although a great player, has to be the most boring and charmless champion since Lendl or Borg. The womens game has a broader variety of personalities. The Williams sisters (until recently), Henin v Clijsters, Sharapova and the rest of the Russians. There's alot more to chose from there.
The overriding point is that its blatant old world discrimination to pay the men more than the women, when the women's game garners just as much fan interest as the mens.
KaiserSoze666 said:
Its never been about the amount of hours spent on the court. Men and Women are physiologically different, and moreover, the players dont decide how many sets they play.
Cali Red said:
They should still make the same amount of money whether the men bring in 40, 50, or 60% of the revenue. The principle of equality overrides all of that.
Raoul said:
Couldn't disagree more. So if the womens game was bringing in 20 percent of the revenue they should be entitled to 50% of the purse? Ah, no. If they are responsible for 60% give them 60% of the prize money. It's not government subsidy, it's free market sports.
Cali Red said:
Its rather pointless to argue this point when we dont know what the real breakdown is. Looking at this from a higher level; my point is that womens tennis is at least as, if not more, captivating than the mens game in the past 5 years, which is more than enough reason to pay them equal money.
They should all play together, I mean Sharapova and the William's sisters would beat Henman, Rusedski and Murray.
I much prefer watching Women's tennis anyway, its far more exciting and nicer
I much prefer watching Women's tennis anyway, its far more exciting and nicer
You just like looking at women's knickers and pokies through sweaty T-shirts.
Its not the same since they banned the knicker level camera at Wimbledon
The best matches are always the blokes still because they have some excellent 5 set thrillers. The womens game is usually two sets long, hardly entertainment. I don't see any reason why they can't play 5 sets, it would make the game more competitive and make for more interesting matches.
The best matches are always the blokes still because they have some excellent 5 set thrillers. The womens game is usually two sets long, hardly entertainment. I don't see any reason why they can't play 5 sets, it would make the game more competitive and make for more interesting matches.
KaiserSoze666 said:Its not the same since they banned the knicker level camera at Wimbledon
The best matches are always the blokes still because they have some excellent 5 set thrillers. The womens game is usually two sets long, hardly entertainment. I don't see any reason why they can't play 5 sets, it would make the game more competitive and make for more interesting matches.
Should women footballers get paid the same amount as the blokes ?
Thought not.
Raoul said:
Why? The government should be committed to the idea of equality (regardless of contribution, competence, ability, etc.) but private business has an obligation to reward the achievers and contributors. Under the principal of equality, should we revamp the NBA rosters to let more white and Hispanic players join the ranks, or increase the salaries in the WNBA to make things "equal?"
I don't need Billie Jean King, you, or anyone else telling me that two entirely different games (men's and women's tennis) are of "equal entertainment value." The fans will tell you what's entertainment and what isn't. If the experts in the field can justify the discrepancy in prize money, fine. If not--well, they're overpaid anyway.
FresnoBob said:
That depends on your concept of equality Bob. There's no evidence to suggest that Mens tennis is any more of an entertainment spectacle than the womens game (especially in the past decade). Also, your NBA analogy is somewhat limited, in that the popularity of both mens and womens tennis is quite comparable, whereas the WNBA is nothing compared to the NBA. Tennis is unique in that respect. Wimbledon is currently the only major tournament to not allocate equal pay, although the women's champion only makes 30k less than the men, which is a tremendous improvement over how it was in the 80s and 90s.
Dont mix beauty with personality...
Raoul said:
Stop being ridiculous...
I can give you a real exemple to prove you are a Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime and saying bullshits. In montreal, there is a tournament where every year it alterns between men an women. Every year when men play, the tournament generates more revenue.
So any human with some brain would say men deserve more money and it's not sexism or other bullshits, its only common sense...
redcharlie said:
Easy way to solve this, split the tournaments into mens and womens, separate sponsorship deals, tv deals and tickets to watch then the prize money on offer will reflect the public appeal of the game.
I personally think the men's game is a lot more interesting at the moment, five setters can get quite exciting, not quite the same with most 3 setters in women's tennis.Raoul said:
That said, women's tennis does generate a fair amount of interest and I do think that there should be equal prize money for men and women. To say men play more and thus deserve more money is a bit stupid, really.
And I think Federer is far more charismatic than Sampras, anyway.
WeasteDevil said:
,,,like those of the Williams sisters, Mauresmo, Pierce & co...
Raoul said:
So should they be getting more, in that case?
Or because of PC & gender equality, they cannot earn more than the men?
kkcbl said:
They should earn the same. They already earn the same in many tournaments. The men at Wimbledon make about 30k more than the women. Not too much of a disparity, but might as well make it equal if its that little.
Raoul said:
But if, by your reckoning, the women bring more entertainment value & bigger bucks for the organisers/sponsors, why shouldn't they earn more?
Why let gender equality dictate/restrict prize money poured in?
Why should the men tag on just to be PC?
kkcbl said:
Exactly at the end of the day you don't see anyone looking for women footballers to br payed equally! Its just a fact of life!
Make them pay equal numbers of sets, or whatever. Even up the disparity in tennis played if you even up the pay.
Bloody political correct feminist bints.
Bloody political correct feminist bints.
kkcbl said:
That's my opinion. The womens game has been more entertaining than the mens since the likes of the Williams sisters, Henin, Clijsters, the comeback of Capriati (and now Hingis), the emergence of Sharapova, as well as late runs by Davenport and Mauresmo. Its the one sport where it should be equal.
Raoul said:
They are stealing the headlines because of all wrong reasons. Women's game at least have some personalities in contrast to Men's game that offers nothing.
Ern said:
Men's tennis has gone rubbish both in terms of charisma and quality.