Within the community.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I guess Djokovic's recent statement is relevant here. Social justice warriors are all over it but I actually agree with what he said. Male tennis produces more revenue so they should be paid more, it's the same with football and many other sports.
I've never really understood equal pay in tennis. I feel I must be missing something, because it's pretty universally accepted (much more so than many of my own feminist ideals), but I don't really get how it fits in to a capitalist system.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/35888159
"The Europeans were behind the Americans when it came to accepting equality," Evert said.
"I doubt you'd hear that as much from the American men players and I'm sort of applauding America for that."
Those darned Europeans.
"The Europeans were behind the Americans when it came to accepting equality," Evert said.
"I doubt you'd hear that as much from the American men players and I'm sort of applauding America for that."
Those darned Europeans.
It's all Milo Yiandolopklopapadokropjoplis' fault
I genuinely think the outrage about the argument has to come from the fact that people either don't watch or understand tennis. I spent about an hour arguing with someone on YikYak about it, and it seemed to be that their entire knowledge of the sport was based around the 2 weeks a year they watch Wimbledon.
I just don't get the argument in terms of work put in (why should women get paid the same for playing best of 3 in Grand Slams as men playing best of 5?). I don't get the argument in terms of draw and appeal/entertainment (sure the Williams sisters are a big draw and in limited circumstances might attract bigger crowds, but the views attracted by the WTA are about 600m lower than that of the ATP).
Men play more tennis (both in number of sets in a match, in Grand Slams, and in terms of number of matches full stop Novak has played ~15-20 matches more than Serena each year for the past three years), at a higher standard, in front of a bigger audience. Its crazy, imo, that the only reason they earn more money is because the smaller WTA events (i.e. the ones not played alongside the men) aren't able to offer us much cash as the smaller ATP events.
On a similar note, I don't see the outrage regarding this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/35883294
He's actually openly proud of the fact that the women are getting paid more than the men and Lizzie Arminstead says an awful lot more stupid things in that article than Djokovic has in this entire dispute.
That said, I thought the Indian Wells' organisers comments were actually pretty bad and it was a poor choice of ally for Djokovic to say what he did when he did.
Especially as in Grand Slam tournaments - which have the greatest exposure in tennis - men still play the best of five sets while women play best of three sets.
I can sympathise a little bit with them because some Trump supporters have proven themselves to be violent. However, such is in the sensitivity of college students that they have become grief stricken over a name, a name which is plastered all over the news.
Additionally, I like how its "conservatives" holding a free-speech events, because only the evil, racist conservatives want free-speech. I find myself having to say "I'm leftist/liberal etc. but I'm not like the others" or words to that effect these days.
I imagine they're holding a free speech event because it relates to their nominee (in all likelihood) for the general election. Would they do the same if someone had written Free Abortions For All Women? Or something similar.
I never understood why those kinds of groups don't like larger segments of their membership being represented. It's just a sodding representative. Tbf though, if you join a college rights group, you're kinda asking for pedantic decisions.
That's fantastic. Proves Trump's completely off when he rants about political correctness.
I think this quote summed it up best:
Just to make it clear: I think Trump's either a complete fool or a lying conman. I am enjoying the way he's winding up some people on the left though.
'We are in pain'. What a bunch of cretins.
I confronted a gay man about this today. He said it had nothing to do with him. A mealy-mouthed reply.
Arrest that man.
So are women tennis players paid more per hour than men or not?
Just read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...to-emory-please-stop-fueling-trumpism/475356/
It's an article about the reaction of the students and how it can only make things worse. It's very good if anyone is interested.
White players produce more revenue than black players so whites should be paid more than blacks.
Oh wait ..... that would be stupid and racist
it feels like the battle lines between left and right are being redrawn with all this recent SJW crap doesn't it?
No they don't per player, how do you work that out?
Jersey sales
The best players sell the most shirts, don't see the relevance of race.
But you do see the relevance of gender? Ok.
I suppose it is a question if you want equality for the sake of it or a meritocracy.
Men create a superior sporting aesthetic due to having more speed and power which is why more people watch men's sport. What would you rather watch, the men's 100m final or the women's 100m final? Most people would say the men's because they are faster and therefore better at the task. That applies to all sports where speed and power are a factor.
As for the black footballer analogy: I am not sure that I buy it. Wasn't Ronaldinho the highest paid player in the world at his peak and Thiery Henry featured on an advert with Federer and Tiger Wood? Black players get their commercial due when they are good enough. Woods was the highest paid sports star in the world for many years and more recently it has been Floyd Mayweather. Boxing is a sport that is purely commercially meritocratic as well. To flip the race question, do you expect all the white 100m runners to earn as much as Usain Bolt? Of course not.
I prefer a meritocracy. If a woman is better at a job and brings in more business then they should be paid more and vice versa.
Men create a superior sporting aesthetic due to having more speed and power which is why more people watch men's sport. What would you rather watch, the men's 100m final or the women's 100m final? Most people would say the men's because they are faster and therefore better at the task. That applies to all sports where speed and power are a factor.
As for the black footballer analogy: I am not sure that I buy it. Wasn't Ronaldinho the highest paid player in the world at his peak and Thiery Henry featured on an advert with Federer and Tiger Wood? Black players get their commercial due when they are good enough. Woods was the highest paid sports star in the world for many years and more recently it has been Floyd Mayweather. Boxing is a sport that is purely commercially meritocratic as well. To flip the race question, do you expect all the white 100m runners to earn as much as Usain Bolt? Of course not.
I prefer a meritocracy. If a woman is better at a job and brings in more business then they should be paid more and vice versa.
Make the women do the 100m in high heels and more folk would watch it.
Michael Jordan is probably the most marketable/profitable athlete ever.
Damn those wanting equality for no good reason
You should have put a trigger warning on that. I am now traumatised.
In football players are paid based on their ability to create revenue. Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar get paid more than most other players in the world. They are paid what they are because their teams believe they can recoup their wages in revenue regardless of their race.
There isn't one. It was a argument that wasn't thought through.
That's a pretty ludicrous comparison in all honesty.
It's complex... Rooney gets paid silly amounts because he's English. Serena gets paid less than Sharapova because of race. These things do impact.
Rooney doesn't get paid what he does because he's English at all, it's because his agent capitalised on his ability and success and made him an incredible marketing tool. Same reason Ronaldo gets paid what he gets paid.
I have no idea what Serena and Sharapova make but their income will be dependant on both success on on the court and marketing off it. Sharapova being smoking hot will also play a big part in her sponsorship income. Although the drugs thing may damage that.
Goodness.
I didn't think I was being remotely controversial, there.
Of course English players who play for United earn more than similarly able counterparts. They are more marketable, because of such.
Of course Sharapova being skinny and white, rather than black and muscular, is more marketable. America is the main market and they like white and dainty looking girls, rather than black and strong.
I wasn't saying you're being controversial, I just disagree.
Rooney being English isn't what makes him the money, it's the career he's had that does that. Same goes for Messi, Ronaldo etc etc and plenty of non white players make mega money in various sports.
Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods are two of the most marketed people in the history of sport. Lewis Hamilton is heading that way, too.
Sharapova vs Serena isn't white vs black.
Jordan and Woods are great examples of athletes beating the system, I would claim. They were special. Rooney ain't, yet he's paid a fortune. Sharapova ain't, yet she is the highest paid female athlete of all time. Of course, in her case, we are dealing with issues of both racism and sexism, that make her so marketable.
Rooney is England's top goalscorer of all time and is on the verge of the same accolade at United. He's definitely been a special athlete and he's had one of the top agents in the business alongside him through his career ensuring he is marketed to the fullest potential. His current form (lack of) seems to be clouding your judgement here. He's also done this in an age of spiraling money in the game in general.
Sharapova is basically a tennis player and a model. Again she's marketed herself extremely well, and I think it's unfair to dismiss this as racism on behalf of the population who buy into her image.