Very good I say, it should certainly appeal to the lefties as Women now get paid equal to men, for doing less work.
So women tennis players getting equal pay at Wimbledon
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Yep, the men's final averages an hour longer than the women's final.
Saying that, Sharapova can get paid whatever she wants
Saying that, Sharapova can get paid whatever she wants
Justin said:
yep, I'd pay Sharapova whatever she wants just to cop a feel
yeah, but we all know that you just want to feel a copTheRedFlag said:yep, I'd pay Sharapova whatever she wants just to cop a feel
It's not as high profile, and they play much less tennis over the course of a tournament. Of course! Why shouldn't they get the same fecking pay for half the work?! cnuts.
does the tickets for the girls games cost less?Spammy said:
do they sell less tickets too?
does the TV pays less for the women games than for the men games?
if the answer is no, then they should earn as much as the guys
bitchesJustin said:
The least popular day is apparently womens quarter final day, because there are no mens matches.
I find it amusing that all day on the radio sports women have been coming out praising the new found 'equality' at Wimbledon. So women can't play for the same length of time as a man, and this is somehow equality?! That still makes you the underclass loves, albeit on a better pro rata pay deal! Pay them whatever they like just to shut em up I say...
I find it amusing that all day on the radio sports women have been coming out praising the new found 'equality' at Wimbledon. So women can't play for the same length of time as a man, and this is somehow equality?! That still makes you the underclass loves, albeit on a better pro rata pay deal! Pay them whatever they like just to shut em up I say...
They should get paid 3 times what Man are paid. At Least Elena should, she's absolutely fit.
If they make more screaming noises, and maybe they introduce a bit of mud wrestling during the intervals, then sure, why the hell not!
If they want equal pay, they should play 5 sets, the same as men, not bloody 3!
It's not as if Federer ever plays more than three sets so this rule is fair until he's gone.ERICSAGOD said:
Cornell said:
True, but this is balanced out by Tim Henman, who always takes 5 sets, even when he struggles to beat someone who is ranked 10,000,000 places below him.
The point is, players don't get paid for time on the court. Two men get the same pay irrespective of whether it takes three sets or five, or whether it's a good match, or gets high viewing figures.
Having said that, why do people keep trotting out the argument that a longer movie doesn't cost more? It's not a question of how much it costs to watch, the question is how highly people are paid for producing the entertainment. A long film, in general, takes a considerably longer time developing, shooting and editing, for which the film workers are indeed paid more.
Why is it most public debates are largely debated by spastics, on both sides?
Having said that, why do people keep trotting out the argument that a longer movie doesn't cost more? It's not a question of how much it costs to watch, the question is how highly people are paid for producing the entertainment. A long film, in general, takes a considerably longer time developing, shooting and editing, for which the film workers are indeed paid more.
Why is it most public debates are largely debated by spastics, on both sides?
Plechazunga said:
This is one of the flaws with democracy.
Plechazunga said:
Anyway, there's something strange about female tennis players, in that they're miles better looking than other female professional athletes. Then you read that tennis appears to be the only mainstream sport where males and females are paid equally. There's got to be a correlation somewhere.
Namliam said:
What, about the movie thing?
People in support of equal pay keep saying, "It's not a matter of the number of sets. If you go to a film, you don't pay more for a longer film." Which is a facile argument.
But so is the argument that men should be paid more because they play more sets. After all, they're not paid by the set - the winner of a 3-set match gets the same amount as the winner of a 5-set match. Besides, sets take different amounts of time. Women's individual games often last ages due to the long rallies, and are less likely to be decided by four big serves.
Still, no doubt they play much shorter matches on average. But regarding the matches as "work", for which they're paid by length of shift, seems to be missing the point a bit about the nature of what they do. They play women's tennis, people pay to see it, and probably have no real wish for the matches to be longer than they are.
The real question is whether punters are generally prepared to pay more to see men than women; and if so, that needs to be weighed against the principle of equality at stake, but without the automatic assumption that equality is a trump card that beats any other argument, for instance from fairness or pragmatism.
Those should be the terms of the debate; the whole number of sets thing is a complete red herring.
Plechazunga said:
I see what you're saying about the number of sets being played not being relevant. Why though is the initial statement a facile one?
Lot 49 said:
The argument that men should be paid more because they play more sets is nonsense. After all, they're not paid by the set - the winner of a 3-set match gets the same amount as the winner of a 5-set match. Besides, sets take different amounts of time. Women's individual games often last ages due to the long rallies, and are less likely to be decided by four big serves.
Still, no doubt they play much shorter matches on average. But regarding the matches as "work", for which they're paid by length of shift, seems to be missing the point a bit about the nature of what they do. They play women's tennis, people pay to see it, and probably have no real wish for the matches to be longer than they are.
The real question is whether punters are generally prepared to pay more to see men than women; and if so, that needs to be weighed against the principle of equality at stake, but without the automatic assumption that equality is a trump card that beats any other argument, for instance from fairness or pragmatism.
Those should be the terms of the debate; the whole number of sets thing is a complete red herring
Er, well said Namliam
The film analogy is silly, because they're claiming that women should be paid the same for shorter matches, just as punters pay the same prices for shorter films. But they've confused the entry fees paid by the audience with the fees paid to the creators of the entertainment.
In the case of film, the people most analogous to the tennis players are the actors, directors etc. They are indeed paid considerably more for long films, because long films tend to take longer to make.
Also, actors are paid more than actresses in general, but that's by the by.
The film analogy is silly, because they're claiming that women should be paid the same for shorter matches, just as punters pay the same prices for shorter films. But they've confused the entry fees paid by the audience with the fees paid to the creators of the entertainment.
In the case of film, the people most analogous to the tennis players are the actors, directors etc. They are indeed paid considerably more for long films, because long films tend to take longer to make.
Also, actors are paid more than actresses in general, but that's by the by.
The women shouldn't even get paid half what the men get. How can it be justifed that the women's champion could possibly wrap up her final in an hour and the men's may play a 5 setter than goes on for 4 hours+ but still get paid the same. Hell the maximum number of sets a woman has to play to win a slam is the minimum a man has a play (assuming no retirements along the way), its stupid.
Lot 49 said:
They're not, they're paid simply for playing. They're paid more the more they win, but there is a fee for the entertainment produced by skilled players, simply in virtue of showing up and playing tennis.
But many people wouldn't agree that it's played to a higher level. It's true that most top men would beat most top women, and that argument, like the men, has a certain strength. On the other hand, it's a slightly different game, with less sets, more rallies and so a different rhythm and tactics. Within the limits of the women's game, they're at the very top level. People come and pay to see women's players at the top level. They don't to see the juniors, not because they're no good, but because they're not as good as they will be, they're not yet at their top level.
There's a significant number of people who enjoy women's tennis more than men's, and wouldn't agree that it's at a lower level.
The problem with that, aside from the assumption that the men's game is better, is that in fact, it is a male and female thing. So it's feeding in to a history of oppression, which hasn't yet entirely finished, as can be seen by the fact that women's pay generally is lower than men's. It's an emotive issue.
So rather than studiedly nonchalant and rather arrogant statements of superiority, what's needed is a careful examination of what kind of tennis people actually prefer to pay to see, and whether, if it's the men's game, that differential is enough to justify higher pay, in spite of the merits of what is also a reasonable argument from equality.
Lot 49 said:
I don't really know what you're on about here. They're paid for playing. There is a selection process, yes, but once selected they are paid, and paid well, simply for competing. At least, they are at Wimbledon.
I did accept that most top men are better than most top women. But that doesn't necessarily mean the men's game is better than the women's.
My own view, and I'm not a massive tennis fan but watch it from time to time, is that at its best, the men's game is better, but a lot of the time the women's game is better. Around the time that people like Richard Krajicek were winning a lot, and when Sampras won everything with perfection but no charisma, I found the men's game quite dull. Whereas the women's game always tends to be pretty enjoyable.
No, that doesn't mean the discussion's over, because that's just one argument that needs to be taken into consideration. Others include the pragmatic question of whether the game can afford, or wants to afford, to pay both equally without reducing the prize-money; and whether it's for the good of the game and society to pay men more than women.
The reason players for top European sides are paid so much more than their peers at other clubs is in part becasue of the enormous viewing figures and TV revenues from the CL.
A certain amount of cash comes into tennis from the viewing public. It's perfectly reasonable that the question of who entertains the public most is taken into account when dividing up the spoils.
There is no "objectively speaking". It's a clash of values, between equality and (two internally competing kinds of) justice. Those kinds of decision are best made through a political process of discussion and negotiation and compromise, rather than a moral judgement from on high.
People often underestimate the difference between men's and women's tennis. Men's tennis is far superior to women's tennis. I'd say that the 1000 ranked man in the world would comfortably beat any top woman player.
If people enjoy watching women play tennis, then I suppose there is an argument for equal pay. But is prize money a reward for entertainment or for purely winning? Take for instance, most of the first round matches which no one actually watches. Do women still get paid the same for winning a match despite on average playing for less time and at a lower skill level?
If people enjoy watching women play tennis, then I suppose there is an argument for equal pay. But is prize money a reward for entertainment or for purely winning? Take for instance, most of the first round matches which no one actually watches. Do women still get paid the same for winning a match despite on average playing for less time and at a lower skill level?
If they're willing to play naked they should get the mens money as well as their own
Watching women's tennis at Wimbledon this year, i still can't believe they get paid the same as men. They're terrible.
they actually do get paid the same????
sorry but the quality of the womans game is so far below the mens it's unreal...
i dont mind watching womens tennis when the women in question are hot but that asside it's tedious in comparison to the mens game.
sorry but the quality of the womans game is so far below the mens it's unreal...
i dont mind watching womens tennis when the women in question are hot but that asside it's tedious in comparison to the mens game.
Not to be sexist, but shorter matches, and less quality, don't deserve equal pay.
Nothing to do with the fact they're female.
Nothing to do with the fact they're female.
I'm going to do half the work of every woman in any future job I do and if they reduce my pay I'll protest that it's sexism.
I think those whores should cover up in burqas and be stoned for their impudence.
Seriously, Maria can be paid whatever she wants, as long as she stays sexy.
Seriously, Maria can be paid whatever she wants, as long as she stays sexy.
Why not just feck the equal pay deal off and give women the choice of competing in the mens tournament, if they're good enough to qualify?
Equality is supposed to mean equality
Equality is supposed to mean equality
That's crazy talk, noodle. I mean they bring in the same amount of sponsorship, sell the same amount of tickets to matches, stay the same length of time on the court and play the same standard of tennis. Clearly, you're sexist, and they're equal. More equal than men if anything. But definitely equal in every way except for those that actually matter in tennis.
a day will come when women will get payed more than men purely on the basis of entertainment. i'd pay myself to watch them play naked!
I'm sure Women's tennis generates significantly less than half of the revenue in tennis.
An average man's match last more than an hour longer, that's like 5-8 commercial breaks, men should make more or women should have to play five sets simple as. Or they should pay the players per set, which I think is more than fair.
It was viewer numbers I meant, and, by extension, sponsorship, advertising and the like.
Wouldn't matter if women played longer matches, less people would still watch.
Someone else can find some stats.
I have no doubt about, they would have a decent argument though if they were playing best of 5, atm it is a complete joke that in all honesty is taking money away from teh men who work harder. Reverse discrimination at its best.
They should hold the female golf majors at the same time as the men's. Then those cnuts would be after the same money as well.
I await the day that a feminist group attempts to sue God for making them worse at sports than their male counterparts.