Its simples really. If the tournament was split into two different tournament, men and womens, played at different times, and they relied on their own entertainment value for the revenues the women would earn far less.
Wimbledon 2012
- Thread starter Nearco
- Start date
Its simples really. If the tournament was split into two different tournament, men and womens, played at different times, and they relied on their own entertainment value for the revenues the women would earn far less.
It's funny because Gilles Simon said something similar and he was abused and criticized by the (female) tennis world.
I think 5 setters will benefit the women tennis and well as the paying fans.
Would you apply that to golf, athletics, football etc.?
If you're comfortable with the market determining a higher rate of pay in men's football over women's football, then why is tennis different?
How are they different ? The rules are nearly identical, spare the 3-5 set lengths. Even so, Men's tennis for years was based on 2-3 sets.
Good god, yes!
Mad, you're scaring me.
Haven't thought about it in others sports to be honest. Tennis is just one of those sports where the women's draw offers similar and sometimes greater entertainment value than the men's. That varies based on the specific personalities that are dominating during a given period, but as a general rule, the women's game was doing significantly better than the men's side until the Federer-Nadal rivalry emerged.
It's different in the sense that they are separated into two categories. Men can't play in the women's game and women can't lay in the men's game. If they competed against each other, then yes, of course the level pay should not take gender into account. The fact that they do not compete against each other is what separates sport from other types of employment.
I bet the viewing figures do not support your theory
The advertising companies (whose opinion actually matters), seem to agree with me and the rest of us.
If men are stronger and have better endurance, they should make better tennis players (assuming their actual tennis-playing ability was identical), so why shouldn't they get paid more?
She'd be wearing Azarenka style tights if it were up to me! She is scary indeed.
That may be, but the reasons they are separated are biological and not something related to entertainment value.
I agree, I usually enjoy watching female tennis more than men's tennis. And I have no idea which one generates the most revenue, but I imagine it is the men's game. I just happen to think that gender-pay equality doesn't really apply in sport, because we are talking about two separate areas of competition. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that tennis has made a decision to pay men and women equally, though.
I don't know about you guys, but I quite enjoy the 2nd set between Radwanska and Williams.
Don't mistake better or stronger with providing greater entertainment value. There are more women than men in the world and many of them prefer watching the women's game. Not withstanding the fact that its simply immoral to discriminate against women simply because they're women. Time to step into the 21st Century.
Williams wins her 5th Wimbledon title. Congrats.
Come on Federer!
Come on Federer!
God I hate the Williams sisters.
Even the BBC commentator sounds like he couldn't give a feck about her just winning.
Everyone awkwardly giving her a brief hug like "really? you want to hug me?" and her awkwardly hugging them back when all she wants to do is get to her mum
Even the BBC commentator sounds like he couldn't give a feck about her just winning.
Everyone awkwardly giving her a brief hug like "really? you want to hug me?" and her awkwardly hugging them back when all she wants to do is get to her mum Apt comparison will be with other Sports not other professions. If Women tennis tournament at Wimbledon were to be staged separately, then there is no doubt the prize money would be less simply because it would generate less revenue. The quality of women tennis right now is dire. I used to love watching Graf play and enjoyed the competition when likes of Hingis, Capriati, Davenport were around and Williams sisters had just broken in. Right now, you have players more motivated to make money via Tennis and glamour around it rather than win GSs. Look at Federer how focused he still is to win and win while you have women players retiring, coming back, retiring again. And even William sisters who can't be bothered to turn up for other tournaments. The whole scene is pathetic.
For me the women's game was at its best when Henin, Clijsters, the Williams sisters, Capriati, as well as the likes of Seles and Hingis were in the tail ends of their careers, all playing at the same time. They need a few more personalities to emerge, but then again, the men's game went through a similar dip about 10 years ago.
Well done Serena. Bit behind you guys.
What's the point of the silly great dish staying in London and giving the winner an 8 inch replica? Let them keep the sodding thing for a year. It's the trophy for winning it.
I think the women should get paid the same as men.
Those were the good old days.
Pathetic if you think about it. Are they athletes or fashion models?
I'd rather have nearly any of these tennis players than nearly every fashion model.
Long may the look pretty as long as they kick ass as well.
I wonder if a Womens Wimbledon, or any grand slam would sell out if it wasn't attached to the Mens in the same two weeks........I mean their end of year tournaments don't do half as well as the mens in the 02 arena does. Nor do the Masters tournaments, some sell out, some don't, pretty much most of the mens do.
The men play more and are a bigger percentage of the attraction. But if the men are cool to split the money equally, then whatever, it's not money I'm ever gonna get my hands on.
The men play more and are a bigger percentage of the attraction. But if the men are cool to split the money equally, then whatever, it's not money I'm ever gonna get my hands on.
Kournikova started all this. Others did not go full circle like here but very much want to reap same rewards and fame, even if it comes at the cost of Tennis. Look at how hard it is for Federer to win a title at 30 while Serena actually warmed up her Tennis at Wimbledon and now walked to the title. Rubbish. Same when Clisjters strolled out of the retirement, straight to a Grand slam title!
Women in grand slams get equal pay despite being less entertaining, less skillful, playing shorter durations, generating less revenue because they are women. That is sexist.
Them being genetical worse is a poor excuse. I'm genetically poor musically, if I put in as much work as radiohead and released a decent but not great album should I get paid as much as them?
Them being genetical worse is a poor excuse. I'm genetically poor musically, if I put in as much work as radiohead and released a decent but not great album should I get paid as much as them?
Womens Tennis is dying.
It's amazing how The williams sisters, with virtually no play time compared to the others can still win a grandslam with so much ease.
What's the point of the ranking system? It's time to make the womens game equivalent to the mens, they should play best of 5 in grandslams. This will begin to seperate the girls from the boys, and bring some consistency to the slam contenders.
It's amazing how The williams sisters, with virtually no play time compared to the others can still win a grandslam with so much ease.
What's the point of the ranking system? It's time to make the womens game equivalent to the mens, they should play best of 5 in grandslams. This will begin to seperate the girls from the boys, and bring some consistency to the slam contenders.
Genetical ? I presume you mean biology here. People don't choose their genders (unless they have a sex change operation). You can only work within the biological and physiological parameters you've been given at birth, and as such, shouldn't be discriminated against because of something that you had no control over. Especially in Tennis where the entertainment value is comparable.
Your radiohead analogy isn't appropriate here since it has nothing to do with gender disparity.
Tbf, coming back after some hiatus and finding yourself close to where you left off isn't really exclusive to Womens tennis......talent is talent and the adrenaline rush of returning can do a lot, it dies off eventually, but look at Woods, he came straight back to the tour and was close to winning the Masters, Scholes with us, Armstrong in the tour, Michael Jordan took like 3 years off and then came back and posted very good numbers for a 20 year old, forget a 40 year old whos had a break. Obviously the talent pool is smaller in Womens Tennis, but Serena would utterly dominate if she actually played all year like she cared, though she'd probably get injured more, she is kind of injury prone, so she cherry picks to keep her career going.
Relative. There have been times when Women's tennis has been more exciting than men's. You can't penalise them for a low standard of competition. It'd be like assessing how entertaining the PL season's been and awarding different prize money each season accordingly.
Premier league players don't get equal pay though.
So what if they are payed equal?
How does that affect your mission to help poor children, o righteous man?
Get a life.
That's not what he means.....he's saying they should give the 8th team the winners prize because they played the most exciting football whereas the winners played dull 1-0 defensive but efficient football. Or something like that.
He's not really. Nobody's saying a woman who has played entertaining tennis should get the trophy if a more boring one wins it instead which would be the comparison you're making. What Mockney is saying is it is relative to what an individual perceives to be entertaining and they shouldn't be penalised because some don't like.
The best comparison would be Utd having to share their gate receipts throughout the season with teams who don't attract as much support. They don't of course.
That's true, but that's a weekly wage. Not prize money for winning a tournament. Tennis players wages (or sponsorship) vary dramatically depending on how good there are, much like football. All teams get the same prize money for winning something, regardless of how well they played or entertaining they were.
The viewing figures probably have more viewers interested in the men's game, but that has to do with the history of how the game has been marketed to male audiences and has nothing to do with entertainment value - which is completely subjective.
I assume you say that to everyone who debates something on here which doesn't affect them?
Anyway, it's not them getting equal pay that's annoying me right now, it's people supporting that decision.
Let's use another comparison. If the Women's Premier League run in conjunction with the men's would it be fair for them to receive the same money?
Would it be fair for Utd to share their revenue with other clubs?
If men and women's football came as a package in the way men and women's tennis does, then yes. You can't really compare them though because it doesn't, whereas Tennis has been a dual gendered sport for as long as it's been popular.