I say yes, but they should have the same number of sets as men. Either raise theirs to 5, or lower mens' to 3. I think it does these talented women a disservice to give them shorter matches (and thus, less overall play time) than their male counterparts. Ramp it up; I bet they can take it. And if they can't, that's why it's a competition, no?
Poll: Should women get the same prize money as men at Wimbledon?
- Thread starter Sparrow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Personally I believe it should be the same.
I can't believe the number of people who are arguing they should be different on the basis that "men play five sets and women only play three" though. For starters that's not even the real world reason that there's a disparity in the prize money (it's the ratings / interest from the public / advertising and sponsorship draw reason that others have mentioned).
But aside from that, people do realise that grand slams like Wimbledon are about the only times that men play five set matches, right? Most of the year men play three set matches, just the same as women... and I'm pretty sure you'll find that even though they're doing the same amount of "work" at those tournaments, men are still making more in prize money.
I can't believe the number of people who are arguing they should be different on the basis that "men play five sets and women only play three" though. For starters that's not even the real world reason that there's a disparity in the prize money (it's the ratings / interest from the public / advertising and sponsorship draw reason that others have mentioned).
But aside from that, people do realise that grand slams like Wimbledon are about the only times that men play five set matches, right? Most of the year men play three set matches, just the same as women... and I'm pretty sure you'll find that even though they're doing the same amount of "work" at those tournaments, men are still making more in prize money.
Mostly everyone else has said what needs to be said. They do less, so they should get less. It doesn't seem to bother most women that their representative players are doing less work, so I don't think much of it either. Then again, I've never met a woman claim to want to do more work in order to show how "equal" they are.
But we are not talking about other tournaments, we are talking about Wimbledon, and at Wimbledon men have more sets per match then women and thus more playing time, seems fair to me.AD-Stu said:
Also you, yourself stated that it is about revenue and viewership.
If a man generates 1000 in revenue and gets 500 in prize money, why should a woman that generates 500 in revenue get the same prize money? in fact it would only be fair to give her 250
look above, it is not just play time it is also about ratings and revenue for the tournament, I think the men's sets are also longer due to viewership demand.thehorror2 said:
If everything was equal yes. but its not. prize money needs to be based on ticket sales and ad revenue. mens matches get more viewers, fill more seats and are actually longer (apparently, i don't follow tennis) thus, the men should make more money. however, if the women drew more viewers and seats were more expensive (idk... bikini mud tennis? id watch that) then they should get more money.
It's interesting because according to the poll the majority are saying yes, but if you look at the posts almost everyone is saying "no" or "other".
Sorry but it's simple economics, and as someone already pointed out, it's comparable to the NBA vs the WNBA. I have no doubt those ladies try as hard (or maybe even harder) than their male counterparts, but the WNBA simply has nowhere near the viewership and ticket sales that the NBA has.
More viewers and more ticket sales=more money.
More money=more ability to pay players high salaries.
I don't watch tennis so I don't really understand why they do this 3 sets vs 5 sets thing, but even if they changed it and everyone played 5 sets, unless it massively increased demand to watch women's tennis (which, let's face it, probably wouldn't happen) then the Powers-that-be at Tennis can pay the players what they deem appropriate. It's not about who works harder, it's about who brings in the most revenue.
Sorry but it's simple economics, and as someone already pointed out, it's comparable to the NBA vs the WNBA. I have no doubt those ladies try as hard (or maybe even harder) than their male counterparts, but the WNBA simply has nowhere near the viewership and ticket sales that the NBA has.
More viewers and more ticket sales=more money.
More money=more ability to pay players high salaries.
I don't watch tennis so I don't really understand why they do this 3 sets vs 5 sets thing, but even if they changed it and everyone played 5 sets, unless it massively increased demand to watch women's tennis (which, let's face it, probably wouldn't happen) then the Powers-that-be at Tennis can pay the players what they deem appropriate. It's not about who works harder, it's about who brings in the most revenue.
N'yeah... my point was that Wimbledon is actually an anomoly on the calendar. It's an event where prize money is the SAME for both sexes, even though men play up to five sets and women play up to three. At most other tournaments the reverse is actually true: men get more money*, even though they play the same number of sets.O maestre said:
So following on from that, my point was that if there's a lot of people that think there should be a difference in pay based on the length of matches (and there's certainly plenty of them in here, even still replying now), then do those same people think pay should be the same at all the other events during the year when both sexes play three sets?
On the reasons for there being five-set matches in the men's competition, I think you'll find that's a case of classical/historical sexism, not viewer demand. You've got to remember that tennis is a very old game with a lot of funny old traditions (Wimbledon still enforces a rule that the players only wear white clothing, for example). Five-set matches date back to a time when it was probably believed that women were a "weaker sex" and couldn't handle five-set matches.
Five set matches are actually kind of bad for TV - they drag on well beyond the attention span of all but the most dedicated viewers. Kind of like the test match in cricket. Sure you can cram more advertising into that time, and it gives more airtime for the on-court sponsors, but it messes with the rest of the schedule. If there's ever a change in the format, expect it to be men moving exclusively to three-set matches, not women starting to play five.
* in a lot of cases this is hard to measure, as men and women play on different "tours" throughout the year so there are many tournaments that are men-only or women-only... but you get my drift.
Equal pay for equal work. Gender should not even be a factor.
Ticket prices for womens matches being lower could be for any number of factors yet the fact they are women should not have any bearing, same work, same pay, less work, less pay.
That should be the only equaliser, you get out what you put in but unfortunately that would require an ideal world.
Ticket prices for womens matches being lower could be for any number of factors yet the fact they are women should not have any bearing, same work, same pay, less work, less pay.
That should be the only equaliser, you get out what you put in but unfortunately that would require an ideal world.
you are probably right Wimbledon is very old fashioned, so it probably is for historical and traditional reasons moreAD-Stu said:
than ratings.
You are also right equal pay should not be based on equal work, at least not in regards to a spectator sport, which is at its basic more about entertainment than athletic competition, so pay should reflect ability, but popularity even more so. In that sense it is still equal pay, at least from the perspective of a sponsor.
I don't think they should, unless the up the women's matches to best of five. That would be completely fair then.
Popularity and ability don't necessarily translate directly to pay from the tournament either though. The player who makes the most prize money from the tournament is the one that wins - you can argue that winning proves a player was the "best" player that entered, but it sure as hell doesn't prove that they were the most popular. Nadal and Federer are probably the two most popular players in the game at the moment but they both got knocked out early in the tournament (Nadal didn't even make it past the first round this year, IIRC) so they didn't make anywhere near as much as Murray and Djokovic who made the final in terms of prize money.O maestre said:
A question though too: does anybody think that, by paying less prize money at some tournaments, organisers are sending a message that women's tennis is a less worthy spectacle? Does anybody think that, even if its popularity isn't the same right now, paying equal prize money now might go some way to encouraging people to take women's tennis more seriously, and in turn build its popularity up closer to that of the mens game? Just a thought.
Whether they do or do not makes absolutely no difference to my life. As such, the professional tennis players themselves should fight it out (and some do, not literally).
At any rate, the top men get paid more than enough to hit some balls around a court. Is there injustice somewhere? Maybe. Not a huge amount of sympathy though.
At any rate, the top men get paid more than enough to hit some balls around a court. Is there injustice somewhere? Maybe. Not a huge amount of sympathy though.
I read your post the first time, but didn't answer it. In all seriousness, I think that's a load of crap, the very last bastion of the women are the weaker sex brigade.NameIsRobertPaulson said:
If it really matters that much, alter shoes to include ankle supports, works for a bunch of other sports. Alternatively change the design of the rackets to slow down the ball. It's not as if it's an insurmountable problem.
You misunderstood what I meant, the prize money is the same no matter which man wins, the difference in prize value is due to men's tennis being more popular as a spectator sport and prize money being linked directly to the amount of people interested in it. Like the world at large the value of one thing compared to another is largely subjective, and based on demand, or in this case popularity.AD-Stu said:
I cannot see how paying women the same amount of prize money, will make women's tennis more popular. I bet that even if a curling team was paid as much as a football team, the sport would not gain in popularity. I honestly do not know a solution to the issue, but I don't think forcing tournament holders and sponsors to fork over more cash is a solution.
It's not about work/time. Sport is a Business at the end of the day. How much revenue does men's tennis bring in and what proportion of that do men get. In the interest of equality women should get a similar proportion of the revenue their specific sport category brings in. Weather it is more or less.
In fact if men's tennis brings in more money but they get paid proportionally less....doesn't that means male tennis players are being exploited more/ getting a sour deal
Next they will be asking Nike to match sponsorship fee's across the board for equalities sake.
Again I couldn't care less if it was 5 , 3 or 1 sets per match for whatever sex. They don't get paid by the hour. To talk about that is missing the point.
In fact if men's tennis brings in more money but they get paid proportionally less....doesn't that means male tennis players are being exploited more/ getting a sour deal
Next they will be asking Nike to match sponsorship fee's across the board for equalities sake.
Again I couldn't care less if it was 5 , 3 or 1 sets per match for whatever sex. They don't get paid by the hour. To talk about that is missing the point.
Sadly, no, if they cant bring in the money then no, I'm all for equality for the same work heck yes and I was ready to call this backward thinking bullshit but if its not generating the same money then what can you do , as for other sports such as soccer(I'm from New Zealand where Rugby is our football) I'm pretty sure its because most of the viewers are male and sports in general is more of a male thing(watching, sports watching), not that its excluding women just that it is watched by a more predominantly male audience and in the business of more viewers = more money that's rather huge.
They should earn the same, but also there's no reason why they should continue to play shorter matches.
My argument has been for some time that both men and women should play 3-set matches up to the 4th round, and 5-set matches thereafter. Given that in general, early-round matches are much more likely to be one-sided (this year's weird results notwithstanding!), this seems like a better solution; we can get through the routine matches quickly and spend more time on the good stuff.
My argument has been for some time that both men and women should play 3-set matches up to the 4th round, and 5-set matches thereafter. Given that in general, early-round matches are much more likely to be one-sided (this year's weird results notwithstanding!), this seems like a better solution; we can get through the routine matches quickly and spend more time on the good stuff.