No matter what happens for the rest of the year, the CEO guy saying the women should be on their knees thanking Djokovic and Nadal and Federer is the highlight for me. It was hilarious. 
Tennis 2016
- Thread starter saivet
- Start date
Pay the same but dock the women every time they double fault. In all seriousness the womens game is a pile of piss, double fault after double fault, second serves at 60kmph, unforced error after unforced error, break, break back, mental breakdowns and after all that.... Serena wins anyway. I struggle to watch a set never mind if it was five.
It isn't regardless of gender. Rodger Federer and Rafael Nadal have brought in the kind of money they have because they are among the greatest to have played the sport. I'm all for equality in general but men's tennis is simply superior and it's not surprise that it generates more interest, is of a higher standard and brings in more money that women's tennis. Rodger Federer being the greatest does have partly to do with him being a man.
That's downright wrong. And goes against the intent of equality and meritocracy. It's like advocating that a woman in your organization should be paid as much as you despite being less capable and doing a worse job than you, simply because she's a women. It's exactly the discrimination women have been fighting against.
Not the point I was trying to make. In an organization, a women CEO could easily be better than a male CEO. In tennis, women will never beat men.
'uncouple' the two tours from each other. Ladies Grand Slams on a different schedule for a start for the next 5 years.
Let's see what kind of sponsors, ratings, crowds they draw. If they do well, do the same for the entire tour and then the WTA can pay what it wants...hell, they can offer up more prize money if they want.
Let's see what kind of sponsors, ratings, crowds they draw. If they do well, do the same for the entire tour and then the WTA can pay what it wants...hell, they can offer up more prize money if they want.
I always find it annoying when these themes get brought up in the way Moore did i.e. in a disrespectful way as it often means the real point is lost.in the backlash I.e. if Djok had made the point without the other guy talking it probably would lead to a better debate. Although ultimately it will always get overshadowed as the media tend to refrain from really reporting fairly on this sort of topic.
For me I find it unbelievable how biased the likes of Serena and general commentators are on this. There really isn't a business rationale behind it and if you want to talk about if from a point of principle then why stop at equal pay in men and womens tournaments, why not extend it to the younger players, the vetrans, disabled etc.
Ultimately it's quite simple, if anyone can argue that the mens game needs to be paired with the womens in the Slams as much as the womens then they're simply misguided. Yes you might get the odd tournament where where someone like Serena draws a bigger crowd, i.e. US, but over the course of the year then the clear winner is the Mens. It won't always be the case, at some point I imagine the womens may become more popular as it has in the past, both sides though should be able to benefit when they're the biggest draw.
I don't know how you would divide it up under a fair formulae though but I'm certain there's a way. Either way it's very disingenuous I feel when people try to argue against it, right now the split isn't fair both in terms of the effort required during the Slams and which side is bringing in a greater share of the money, to the point that the men are paid less per set/hour than the women in the slams.
In context it really doesn't matter that much, we're talking about making rich people slightly more/less rich and really for the best players more money comes from royalties/sponsorships which I imagine both sides are better of playing the Slams together than separate. I just find it annoying when there doesn't even seem to be an acknowledgement that the current split is either slightly unfair (or just less chat that the current split is fair) and the arguments the other side make.
For me I find it unbelievable how biased the likes of Serena and general commentators are on this. There really isn't a business rationale behind it and if you want to talk about if from a point of principle then why stop at equal pay in men and womens tournaments, why not extend it to the younger players, the vetrans, disabled etc.
Ultimately it's quite simple, if anyone can argue that the mens game needs to be paired with the womens in the Slams as much as the womens then they're simply misguided. Yes you might get the odd tournament where where someone like Serena draws a bigger crowd, i.e. US, but over the course of the year then the clear winner is the Mens. It won't always be the case, at some point I imagine the womens may become more popular as it has in the past, both sides though should be able to benefit when they're the biggest draw.
I don't know how you would divide it up under a fair formulae though but I'm certain there's a way. Either way it's very disingenuous I feel when people try to argue against it, right now the split isn't fair both in terms of the effort required during the Slams and which side is bringing in a greater share of the money, to the point that the men are paid less per set/hour than the women in the slams.
In context it really doesn't matter that much, we're talking about making rich people slightly more/less rich and really for the best players more money comes from royalties/sponsorships which I imagine both sides are better of playing the Slams together than separate. I just find it annoying when there doesn't even seem to be an acknowledgement that the current split is either slightly unfair (or just less chat that the current split is fair) and the arguments the other side make.
Analogy between Olympics and GS is completely off. GS prize money is fueled by the sponsors, TV deals and tickets. It is a very much a commercial enterprise now just like any other sporting event. Olympics are still largely bankrolled by the Govt of the host nation.
The argument that, if women get 1m as a prize money as opposed to 600/700k would compensate for any sexist obstacle in the way of more women taking up sports, also does not make any sense.
This is equivalent of saying that if Barca had a women's football team, they should pay their best female footballer the same salary as Messi to encourage more female interest in football or to make up for sexism in footballing world.
Was watching the BBC video about it. Djoko won double the amount of prize money than Serena did last year. (lack of games by Serena probably is some of the reason) Wimbledon Men's final had more viewers than the Women's, but the Women's final in the US open and more viewers than the Men's - although that was the Cilic vs Nishikori final, still counts nonetheless.
WTA only tour events get half the money the men's do. I don't really get the equal pay stuff, its equal pay in Grand Slams and combined events where it seems prize money is a collective thing.
WTA only tour events get half the money the men's do. I don't really get the equal pay stuff, its equal pay in Grand Slams and combined events where it seems prize money is a collective thing.
I must say I thought the point Murray made about the man who is 70th in the world benefiting from Djokovic and Federer just as much as the women was very well made. Nobody is tuning in to watch that guy play so why should he make any money if we're going by those rules?
The only legitimate argument there has ever been for unequal pay is the number of sets played per match. And by all accounts, the majority of female players are in favour of playing 5 sets but have been turned down so I can't see why it is even up for discussion anymore?
The only legitimate argument there has ever been for unequal pay is the number of sets played per match. And by all accounts, the majority of female players are in favour of playing 5 sets but have been turned down so I can't see why it is even up for discussion anymore?
Yeah exactly, and a potential counter would be that by equalising the money it arguably lessens the need for the women's game to pick up it's quality. Over the last 10 years or so, Fed, Nadal, Djok and Murray have really set an excellent standard, with their rivalries being big draws. As a result the quality in the mens side has been really good, with people needing to up their games and as a result this has helped draw in greater attention which leads to more money. Just spreading the cash out means on the women's side there is less need to improve the quality there which imo has slipped recently.
I'm not a big fan of the number of sets argument in terms of whilst it's valid I don't really think it addresses the real issue as even if they all played 3 or 5 sets the variance is on who is driving the money and at the moment it's the men's game more than the womens and they should be compensated for that in the same way the most popular actor/actress/musician etc would get a higher cut.
Arguing about tennis prize money is an argument that is never going to be won, why? because people don't take in all the facts no matter which side they are on. There are two ways of looking at it, either women's tennis earns the same money for less work or the same work. My view is that yes its fair to have not even prize money between the wta and atp tours if there is more interest in the atp tour and men's tennis play more sets at grand slams. It would not be fair if they were both on the same tour, but they are not! However, it is up to each individual tournament to set the prize money and no one can change that so no one complaining on facebook is going to help or hinder. Where are the people complaining about for example women's football not earning the same amount as men's, or basketball? Or all the americans where their most popular league, the nfl doesn't even have a women's league at all. There are bigger fish to fry for true equality than this. But then again, feminists will argue for stuff that doesn't necessarily mean equality if it goes too far over to the men's side if it was previously towards the men's side. I don't describe myself as that for that precise reason, I don't want to get mixed up with these sjw tumblr peeps that don't have a clue about the world or reality. Tennis is the sport where personally I think women have it the best really and the most recognition.
Woman's tennis is the one female sport where the woman's game can without a question thrive on its own. It does not need the Olympics or a World Cup to get people to momentarily care about the sport. Tennis has a passionate, loyal female fan base that most sports do not have(here in the US the Tennis Channel had the highest percentage of female viewers of all the niche sports channels). The likes of Sharapova and Serena Williams have popularity that rivals the best players in the men's game. So this is not a NBA/WNBA situation or a Three Lions/ Three Lionesses situation. So I am perfectly fine with equal pay at Grand Slam events even with the differences in sets.
That's not relevant. What matters is how good they are and how badly people want to watch them. Would you pay disabled/veteran tennis players the same as the top tennis players in the world?
I think it's incredible how many people don't understand this point, the WTA is a very well run organisation and unlike any other female sport this can easily sustain on its own. Also across time a lot of female players like Billie Jean King, Evert, Court, Navratilova, Serena etc have done as much for the popularity of the sport as their male counterparts and it's absolutely fair that Women also get a share of the money that comes into the sport now.
Serena having a go at Djokovic. A bit rich considering Djokovic doesn't take half the year off.
Djokovic has had to apologize. Ridiculous.She said:
No it wouldn't, you mental. It would be because he was better than your daughter (if he was indeed better).
I wish Djokovic had stood by his comments. But I understand he doesn't want people going batshit mental and targeting him all the time when he's got bigger priorities.
Ridiculous that Djokovic had to apologise for his comments.
lol Serena.
Just a good PR move by Novak to apologise. Going for the Career Slam would have been even more difficult if he was dealing with distractions like this.
No one is saying women shouldn't get a share of the money so where you got that idea from is beyond me. The point is that it shouldn't be 50%. Serena's comments are deliberately misleading as I'm sure that she knows full well the point that Djokovic was trying to make. As usual anyone who disagrees with the current situation gets labeled as being sexist and forced into an apology.
Last edited:
Indeed.
It's not a very good point given the sport is sub-divided into two distinct categories of men and women's tennis, and everyone within those categories are of course part of the same group, reaping benefits of being part of that group, which most consider simply a better group.
For example, let's compare the PL and the Japanese League. Now, not all that many people globally want to watch Watford who definitely benefit from being a top league alongside Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal and that is reflected in the distribution of money. But that isn't a reason for the Japanese League, a weaker competition with weaker competitors and a lower standard of play, to have the same prize money/revenue distribution as the PL, just "coz Watford also are lucky". Basically, Andy is just jumping equality bandwagon instead of thinking logically.
Comments from Stan were something along the lines of 'it's not right for me to tell my daughter that she cannot earn as much money in tennis because she's not a boy'
Maybe he can tell her that "You cannot earn as much as boys because your sport isn't watched as much, and you play at a lower level than theirs with less sets".
So, what's wrong with that? Male supermodels will never be as popular or attractive as female supermodels and everyone agrees it'd be ridiculous for them to demand equal pay, right?
She said:
No it wouldn't, you mental. It would be because he was better than your daughter (if he was indeed better).
No surprise he had to apologise, conversations on this sort of topic can only go one way as there's to much fear of being branded sexist to have a honest debate.
The only way her argument makes sense is if they played in one competition. It's not evn a question of who's better but purely who do people want to see and how much will they pay to see it, how much value do you produce, that's pretty much how every professional organisation works.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35884930
I for one am very happy about this. He's only been a British citizen for 1 year of the 26 he's been alive.
And he moved to the UK in 2008 having played 3 Davis Cup ties for Slovenia.
Any form of any sport where you represent a nation naturally has a huge amount of tribalism attached to it. I understand if your mum and dad are from different countries for example, you would have to choose but if you've actually played for a country you shouldn't be able to then switch to another. Bedene can't see this, and is clearly desperate for the additional exposure he would get playing for GB compared to Slovenia.
Del Potro vs Federer in miami
nice one! Didn't knew Delpo was back.
nice one! Didn't knew Delpo was back.
He played at Indian Wells too. Got knocked out by Berdych.
Great to have him back, hopefully it's for a good period of time too.
Del Potro simply can't compete without using his backhand. he took MT against Zeballos today, apparently because of the pain in his wrist (again).
Why the feck does Djokovic have to apologise? Ridiculous.
Nadal 
Only watched the first set. Nadal retired in the third, I'm reading he was ill or something.
Very disappointed. Federer injured.
Murray, Nadal and Wawrinka playing poorly. Djokovic should steamroll Miami even though Thiem in the next round could be tricky. But at this moment the above three players need to buck up their ideas as they not even getting the chance to play Djokovic.
Murray, Nadal and Wawrinka playing poorly. Djokovic should steamroll Miami even though Thiem in the next round could be tricky. But at this moment the above three players need to buck up their ideas as they not even getting the chance to play Djokovic.
Federer and Nadal are done as being serious threats to Djokovic in a big match. Murray and Wawrinka have never been consistent threats unless they have a flawless day.
Need some new blood to come through. Thought one of the guys from the Del Potro/Raonic/Nishikori generation would emerge as a serious player but injuries and other things have stopped them.
Need some new blood to come through. Thought one of the guys from the Del Potro/Raonic/Nishikori generation would emerge as a serious player but injuries and other things have stopped them.
Third Indian Wells-Miami double in a row for Djokovic, first man to do it. Boring.