Wimbledon 2012

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.

People don't choose their height, but short basketballers (I'm talking sub 5'5) don't get any favours. People don't choose their intelligence, yet people with very high IQ make more on average than those with very low IQ. People don't choose their race, yet non-black sprinters get destroyed by black sprinters.

This kind of "discrimination" occurs everywhere, yet only here is it unacceptable.
 
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.

You think that would be fair? You're mental. You're giving people money for what sex they are rather than what they earn.
 
Theres no need for clubs to share revenues in that comparison for me, but if there was a Womens Premier League in with the Mens one, they both should have the same prize money, as women do play a full 90 minutes at a high intensity(maybe not same skill level but that shouldn't matter), whereas they don't play the same in Tennis.

Just because they might not fill a stadium shouldn't change that, Wigan would still get the same prize money as Man Utd if they won the title. I mean Federer doesn't share what he earns from his image with his tour mates.
 
Theres need for clubs to share revenues in that comparison for me, but if there was a Womens Premier League in with the Mens one, they both should have the same prize money, as women do play a full 90 minutes, whereas they don't play the same in Tennis.

Just because they might not fill a stadium shouldn't change that, Wigan would still get the same prize money as Man Utd if they won the title. I mean Federer doesn't share what he earns from his image with his tour mates.

A league that would generate more than 90% of the revenue should split it equally with another? This is fair? Wigan would get the same prize money because they have earned it. Not due to their sex.
 
You think that would be fair? You're mental. You're giving people money for what sex they are rather than what they earn.

What do you mean, what they earn? You're equating the popularity of women's tennis with that of women's football, which is rather pointless. Women's tennis was as big a draw as the men's during the Graf/Navratalova years and the early Williams, post Samp & pre Fed years. Currently it isn't, but the "entertainment" value of it depends on the competition at the time, as does the men's. You can't vary the prize money every few years depending on how entertaining it is from a subjective POV. Men & Women's tennis has always come as a package. Does that mean when there's a dip in the men's game they should lower their prize money? What if when Nadal & Djokovic retire no one of interest comes through, but women's Tennis suddenly gets an equatable set of rivals? We change it then do we?

The only real argument is the amount of sets.
 
People don't choose their height, but short basketballers (I'm talking sub 5'5) don't get any favours. People don't choose their intelligence, yet people with very high IQ make more on average than those with very low IQ. People don't choose their race, yet non-black sprinters get destroyed by black sprinters.

This kind of "discrimination" occurs everywhere, yet only here is it unacceptable.

Your height isn't something as fundamental as gender though. Men and Women are different, but morally, people shouldn't discriminate against one another based on gender, especially when it comes to something that's so subjective. Its remarkable how so many males are indoctrinated into thinking that men are superior.
 
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.

People supporting equal pay for women annoy you?

Why?

And no I don't to your first query.
 
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.

Why not? If I was in a wheelchair from birth, and wanted to play football, could I? Or would I be discriminated against because of something I have no control over. Reductio ad absurdium I know, but your point doesn't really apply here.

There are women in the army aren't there? For which you have to be at absolute peak physical fitness. Iraqis won't just decide to go easy on you cos you're a woman. They're capable of working with the men, but these tennis players aren't?

If you had the top 16 men play the top 16 women, the men would absolutely walk it, I don't see why they shouldn't be paid more.
 
What do you mean, what they earn? You're equating the popularity of women's tennis with that of women's football, which is nonsense. Women's tennis was as big a draw than men's during the Graf/Navratalova years and the early Williams, post Samp & pre Fed years. Currently it isn't, but the "entertainment" value of it depends on the competition at the time, as does the men's. You can't vary the prize money every few years depending on how entertaining it is from a subjective POV. Men & Women's tennis has always come as a package. Saying "yeah but it's not as good, so they shouldn't be paid the same" is silly. Does that mean when there's a dip in the men's game they should lower their prize money? What if when Nadal & Djokovic retire no one of interest comes through, but women's Tennis suddenly gets an equatable set of rivals? We change it then do we?

The only real argument is the amount of sets.

I'm not equating it. I'm asking is it fair to share money generated by a men's league and giving it to women. Obviously women's tennis is more popular than women's football but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it is close to the popularity of the men's game. If the men's game dips and popularity in general decreases then obviously the prize money is going to decrease. I'm not sure what point trying to make with that. It's happened in snooker, why would tennis be any different?

Change it when the women's game attracts the same revenue. It's simple enough.

You've already said you think it would be fair for two football leagues to share money based on sex. That's your starting point and the argument you're building around it is flimsy at best.
 
You think its ridiculous that men and women get paid the same for their professions ? Interesting.

They shouldn't get paid as much, see the example of men's and women's football, men and women's basketball, golf, etc. The difference is that they compete at the same venue at the same time

Market values should determine that, I bet tickets for tomorrow are more expensive than for today. The TV companies pay more for men's tennis

But it will never happen, would be political suicide at the same event to do this, and they'll never hold them seperately at different times (i.e start women's wimbledon when the men's finishes) or have both men and women in one draw
 
The only real argument is the amount of sets.

Not really the only argument, but if as you say that was the only reason, it's the weakest possible argument, as the women would I'm sure happily play five sets, just noone wants to see them do it
 
I'm not equating it. I'm asking is it fair to share money generated by a men's league and giving it to women. Obviously women's tennis is more popular than women's football but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it is close to the popularity of the men's game. If the men's game dips and popularity in general decreases then obviously the prize money is going to decrease. I'm not sure what point trying to make with that. It's happened in snooker, why would tennis be any different?

Change it when the women's game attracts the same revenue. It's simple enough.

You've already said you think it would be fair for two football leagues to share money based on sex. That's your starting point and the argument you're building around it is flimsy at best.

That's not the starting point of my argument at all. I said they should share it if they were part of the same tournament and comparable to Tennis. They're not though.

You don't pay to watch individual games at Wimbledon, you pay for a day ticket to the place, then the main courts, where you can end up watching both men and women. So as far as earning goes, the women are earning The All England Club (who provide the prize money) just as much as the men, since there's no division in where the attendance revenue comes from.

Now I'm sure the TV rights is a different matter, but then that will vary. Usually it will be the men's, but I'm sure the first all Williams final in 2002 was a bigger draw than Lleyton Hewitt vs David Nalbandian. So what do you do there? Make the prize money bigger for that one off event? That's silly. That's the starting point of my argument. That you can't base prize money on how entertaining it is at the moment.
 
Why not? If I was in a wheelchair from birth, and wanted to play football, could I? Or would I be discriminated against because of something I have no control over. Reductio ad absurdium I know, but your point doesn't really apply here.

There are women in the army aren't there? For which you have to be at absolute peak physical fitness. Iraqis won't just decide to go easy on you cos you're a woman. They're capable of working with the men, but these tennis players aren't?

If you had the top 16 men play the top 16 women, the men would absolutely walk it, I don't see why they shouldn't be paid more.

No, your military analogy is a bit off. Women for years weren't allowed into combat despite making identical salaries.
 
It's not equal really. It's equivalent to asking men to work twice as hard for the same money.

Bollocks and you are talking to someone who played junior tennis at a high level with players like Ryan Harrison and other juniors who might also go pro.

You know what I think?

I feel behind all that mask of logic is sour grapes, why the feck should anyone feel annoyed if women get the same money as men?

Anyway carry on people cause no one here is going to change their thinking.
 
That's not the starting point of my argument at all. I said they should share it if they were part of the same tournament and comparable to Tennis. They're not though.

You don't pay to watch individual games at Wimbledon, you pay for a day ticket to the place, then the main courts, where you can end up watching both men and women. So as far as earning goes, the women are earning The All England Club (who provide the prize money) just as much as the men, since there's no division in where the revenue comes from.

Now I'm sure the TV rights is a different matter, but then that will vary. Usually it will be the men's, but I'm sure the first all Williams final in 2002 was a bigger draw than Lleyton Hewitt vs David Nalbandian. So what do you do there? Make the prize money bigger for that one off event? That's silly. That's the starting point of my argument. That you can't base prize money on how entertaining it is at the moment.

It's not comparable yet you still said it would be fair. It clearly was your starting point. That's a ridiculous comment to make. It's equivalent to saying Celtic should've got the same prize money as City last season or Reading. The achievement was the same, the difference being the quality and interest.

As I'm sure you'd know women's tennis is not as popular as men's in much the same way as Scottish football isn't as popular as the English game. You're being disingenuous if you're trying to claim women's tennis earns as much as the men's game just because you have to buy a day ticket. If it was just a women's tournament they wouldn't be able to charge as much and I think you know that.
 
Well now you're just making up what my argument is, and saying it's stupid. Which isn't an argument. But well done. The PL & the SPL aren't the same competition. Wimbledon is. Regardless of whether people would pay the same if Wimbledon was separated, it isn't. So you're making an argument based on theoretical probabilities.

Saying things like "Women's game isn't as popular, and you know this" is you being disingenuous. As I pointed out, certain women's games are likely to be more popular than certain men's games. On balance no, they're not. But whilst they're being played at the same tournament, you can't just say "yeah, but if they weren't, they wouldn't" because they still are.
 
Bollocks and you are talking to someone who played junior tennis at a high level with players like Ryan Harrison and other juniors who might also go pro.

You know what I think?

I feel behind all that mask of logic is sour grapes, why the feck should anyone feel annoyed if women get the same money as men?

Anyway carry on people cause no one here is going to change their thinking.

What's the average time of a woman's game in comparison to a man's?

What's the relevance of you playing tennis at junior level? Away and take your high horse for a ride.
 
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.

While there's a question where women tennis is going, you are not right there. Venus has been a shadow of herself for a long time. Serena's comeback is a year old now, during which she lost a final in the US Open and in the first round of the Roland Garros. It's not been all fun and sailing at all.
 
Well now you're just making up what my argument is, and saying it's stupid. Which isn't an argument. But well done. The PL & the SPL aren't the same competition. Wimbledon is.

You said it would be fair for women to share the Premier League's money. Not me. They don't play in the same competition. It is several tournaments in one host location.
 
Doubles winners get less than half what the singles champion does. Why is that?
 
You said it would be fair for women to share the Premier League's money. Not me. They don't play in the same competition. It is several tournaments in one host location.

And you brought up that men apparently "earn" more. But considering you pay for the host location, and not the games, they don't. They both "earn" the host location the same amount. What would happen if they were separated is irrelevant. Even if it's highly likely your assertion about what they'd earn is right.
 
And you brought up that men apparently "earn" more. But considering you pay for the host location, and not the games, they don't. They both "earn" the host location the same amount. What would happen if they were separated is irrelevant. Even if it's highly likely your assertion about what they'd earn is right.

It's not irrelevant in determining whether it is fair that they receive the same money. They don't earn the host the same amount because the spectators are paying to watch the men's game by and large.

Why are double's winners paid less?
 
If I am correct, some time ago the prize money for women was actually used to be less than men. So it is not like it has always been like this.
 
They don't earn the host the same amount because the spectators are paying to watch the men's game by and large.

Says you.

Screenshot2012-07-07at180615.png


Now obviously, that's just trends for the US. But it goes someway to discrediting your blind assertion.
 
Interest.

From 2001-2005 the Women's final got higher viewing figures than the men's every single year.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...s-And-Womens-Finals-Ratings-Trend-On-NBC.aspx

So your belief that the men's game is always of more interest is, actually, complete bollocks.

Where did I say it is always of more interest? To think you accused me of making up your argument.

You've even agreed that I'm in all likelihood correct about it's popularity. The evidence is surely there throughout the tour.

If their tournament earns more they should be paid more. That goes for men or women. It is after all, them generating the revenue.

Why are doubles winners paid less?
 
Says you.

Screenshot2012-07-07at180615.png


Now obviously, that's just trends for the US. But it goes someway to discrediting your blind assertion.

An assertion, you actually agreed was more than likely correct. Again, the proof will be there throughout the tour.

Again you're trying to make my argument something it isn't to cover the fact you think it's fair to share money regardless of how it is earned. You've already stated that do there's no going back now.
 
Says you.

Screenshot2012-07-07at180615.png


Now obviously, that's just trends for the US. But it goes someway to discrediting your blind assertion.

Could it be coincidence that the viewing figures tend to be higher for American winners?
 
No, your military analogy is a bit off. Women for years weren't allowed into combat despite making identical salaries.

But they can now. In the military, men and women are treated equally, why is that not the case in tennis?
Says you.

Screenshot2012-07-07at180615.png


Now obviously, that's just trends for the US. But it goes someway to discrediting your blind assertion.

As you say, that's just America. Have you noticed how many Americans are in the final? That almost completely voids your argument. Every single women's final has an American, bar one, which had a shit rating. The All-American men's finals were the best rated, which is completely expected. As this is an English-based tournament, with an English audience and no English finalists, our audience figures would be much more relevant.
 
Where did I say it is always of more interest? To think you accused me of making up your argument.

You're basing your argument that men should be paid more on the fact that "spectators are paying to watch the men's game by and large"...But if they aren't doing that, which on occasion they aren't, and there's no way of accurately determining exactly how much they are, then you're basing your argument on blind assumption, surely? Which is a pretty sketchy way of determining prize money.

So when there's more interest in the women's final than there is in the men's, and it's (presumably) generating higher TV revenue, and the same amount for gate receipts, then you presumably think they should be paid the same, or possibly more, in these instances?

Why are doubles winners paid less?

I've said. It's interest. The doubles has never generated more interest than the singles. The women's singles have often generated more interest than the mens.
 
But they can now. In the military, men and women are treated equally, why is that not the case in tennis?


As you say, that's just America. Have you noticed how many Americans are in the final? That almost completely voids your argument. Every single women's final has an American, bar one, which had a shit rating. The All-American men's finals were the best rated, which is completely expected. As this is an English-based tournament, with an English audience and no English finalists, our audience figures would be much more relevant.

I agree, and tomorrows final will have huge figures in Britain because of Murray. But I'd also guess that the 2002 final would have higher ratings worldwide, because the interest in the Williams sisters was peak, and no one really gave a shit about Hewitt vs Nalbandian. The point is it fluctuates. Thus basing prize money on what the current state of competition and interest is is inconsistent. It would mean changing it every year.

The men's final in 2008 & 2009 had huge figures compared to the women's, but that was because the 2007 & 2008 finals were epics, and the high point of a tense rivalry, which created a buzz, whilst comparatively the Williams sisters were boring the shit out of everyone.

Neither of these things are set in stone. Prize money generally is.


Despite what acnumber9 keeps trying to insinuate, my initial point was arguing against this post..

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.

Which is not always the case, and thus not a good argument IMO.
 
But they can now. In the military, men and women are treated equally, why is that not the case in tennis?


As you say, that's just America. Have you noticed how many Americans are in the final? That almost completely voids your argument. Every single women's final has an American, bar one, which had a shit rating. The All-American men's finals were the best rated, which is completely expected. As this is an English-based tournament, with an English audience and no English finalists, our audience figures would be much more relevant.

Not completely, there are still separate areas where men and women operate in the military.
 
You're basing your argument that men should be paid more on the fact that "spectators are paying to watch the men's game by and large"...But if they aren't doing that, which on occasion they aren't, and there's no way of accurately determining exactly how much they are, then you're basing your argument on blind assumption, surely? Which is a pretty sketchy way of determining prize money.

So when there's more interest in the women's final than there is in the men's, and it's (presumably) generating higher TV revenue, and the same amount for gate receipts, then you presumably think they should be paid the same, or possibly more, in these instances?



I've said. It's interest. The doubles has never generated more interest than the singles. The women's singles have often generated more interest than the mens.

You're using television figures in one country to prove your point. You're doing so but neglecting the fact that said country had a winner in those finals more often than not. When an American male won, the figures were higher. You also attributed an argument to me that I never made. I never said it was always more popular. A final is also not indicative of overall popularity.

So you admit interest plays a part now? Is it not the same tournament anymore? Do the fans not pay entrance the same for doubles in the same way they do the rest? Either prize money should be based on interest or it shouldn't. Your initial argument was it isn't fair to base it on entertainment/competition as it is relative and fluctuates. Now you have some flimsy evidence that the women's game is as popular your tack has changed. Just further evidence you're attempting to build an argument around your initial view.
 
So you admit interest plays a part now? Is it not the same tournament anymore?

Of course it does. I also never said it didn't (blah blah attributing arguments I never made blah blah ad hoc) There's no one reason in anything, and certainly not in this. Interest plays a part. You were the one who brought up men "earning" more. I was pointing out that they don't, technically, earn the All England Club (who provide the prize money) anymore, and certainly not in any tangible way. Thus prize money cannot simply be decided on the assumed fact that there's more interest in the mens.

Do the fans not pay entrance the same for doubles in the same way they do the rest? Either prize money should be based on interest or it shouldn't.

It's not black and white. It shouldn't be based on the quality of the tennis, and thus the interest, at any given moment. But obviously interest plays a part. I've never tried to claim it's one thing or the other. The difference between interest in the men & women's games, and the intetrest in single & doubles games is huge, and thus not really relevant to this argument. A bit like the women's football/women's tennis one.

Your initial argument was it isn't fair to base it on entertainment/competition as it is relative and fluctuates. Now you have some flimsy evidence that the women's game is as popular your tack has changed. Just further evidence you're attempting to build an argument around your initial view.

No. My initial argument was that it shouldn't be based on any current level of quality, because that would require a constant changing of prize money, which would be ludicrous. I then responded to your remarks about earning and people largely going to watch the mens with some evidence that that isn't always the case. I haven't once claimed the womens game is always as or more popular either, or that I'm only arguing based on one rigid principle, despite your rather tiresome attempts to pigeon hole my points and then claim they're rubbish because I also think something else. I've been arguing a variety of different things to a variety of different points. At one stage we were arguing about the equatability of footballers wages to tennis sponsorship.

I'm going out now. And am invariably going to be having this argument with myself on the train. Which is annoying.
 
Of course it does. I also never said it didn't (blah blah attributing arguments I never made blah blah ad hoc) There's no one reason in anything, and certainly not in this. Interest plays a part. You were the one who brought up men "earning" more. I was pointing out that they don't, technically, earn the All England Club (who provide the prize money) anymore, and certainly not in any tangible way. Thus prize money cannot simply be decided on the assumed fact that there's more interest in the mens.



It's not black and white. It shouldn't be based on the quality of the tennis, and thus the interest, at any given moment. But obviously interest plays a part. I've never tried to claim it's one thing or the other. The difference between interest in the men & women's games, and the intetrest in single & doubles games is huge, and thus not really relevant to this argument. A bit like the women's football/women's tennis one.



No. My initial argument was that it shouldn't be based on any current level of quality, because that would require a constant changing of prize money, which would be ludicrous. I then responded to your remarks about earning and people largely going to watch the mens with some evidence that that isn't always the case. I haven't once claimed the womens game is always as or more popular either, or that I'm only arguing based on one rigid principle, despite your rather tiresome attempts to pigeon hole my points and then claim they're rubbish because I also think something else.

To be honest. I'm completely done with the argument after this. If it shouldn't be based on the quality then doubles should get the same. After all, it is the same tournament according to you.

Your evidence was poor. It is from one country heavily biased by the success of a compatriot. You've stuck to it like glue as if it unquestionably proves me wrong. It doesn't. The real evidence is there in terms of the popularity of the two tours outside of grand slams and in the billing games are given in terms of court selection. Another way of gauging popularity could be to look through this thread or conduct a straw poll and see who's more interested. It would be more accurate that what you have provided.

You've already said it would be fair for women to get the same money regardless of whether it was more popular or not. That comment has undermined all other points you've made and no number of false accusations of me attributing arguments to you (laughably hypocritical) will change that.
 
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.

:lol: you're telling us some trannies play in the women's game and we don't know about them ?