So, even though nobody cares because the World Cup is on, it has been Wimbledon for the past two weeks. Unlike in most other tournaments, the men and women of Wimbledon get equal prize money.This is a bit of a controversial issue, and as long as everyone keeps the sexism in the 1950s, it could provoke an interesting conversation.
The main reason in favour of giving equal prize money is that the women are playing at the top of their game, beating the best in the world and that is an equal achievement. A pretty simple argument.
The main reasons in opposition is that Women's tennis is only three sets and not 5, and generally the matches are way shorter - Kvitova had won the final in the time it took Federer to win the first set of the men's final. To win Wimbledon as a woman takes a minimum of 14 sets, this wouldn't be enough to get past the quarter finals for the men.
The other reason is the popularity. The men's final has about 3 times the audience of the women's final, and if we accept that double's players and disabled players don't get as much because they're games are less popular, then isn't this just an extension?
Personally, I find it quite an uncomfortable situation. I don't feel right saying that women should get less for what is essentially the same job as men, but when you look at it as a sport and predominantly about entertainment, and pragmatically fewer people are being entertained for less time by the female competitors. I have no solutions, what are your suggestions?
Logic says whoever brings in the most money would be paid the most. If in tennis it's the men then you would think they would be paid more.
Just like for example if women's volleyball brought in more money than men's volleyball I would expect the women to get more.
The WBNA players don't get paid the same as NBA players.
However if Wimbledon has the money and is willing to pay men and women the same then I'm totally fine with that. It seems like a silly thing for people to argue about. At the end of the day it's not going to affect me personally nor will it affect the people who aren't happy about it.
So, even though nobody cares because the World Cup is on, it has been Wimbledon for the past two weeks. Unlike in most other tournaments, the men and women of Wimbledon get equal prize money.
False. Every grand slam has equal prize money. Wimbledon was the last to do so. Five of the most important tournaments on both tours also award equal prize money. While that is indeed a minority, events featuring both tours are rare. From a quick look at wikipedia, I can find two/three (depending on how we count the Roger's Cup) events that feature ATP and WTA professionals but don't award equal prize money. This is attributable to their status as WTA Premier 5 events where the prize money is (i.e. can only be) $2,000,000 while the ATP side does not have this limitation. The majority of combined events award equal prize money.
This is a bit of a controversial issue, and as long as everyone keeps the sexism in the 1950s, it could provoke an interesting conversation.
The main reason in favour of giving equal prize money is that the women are playing at the top of their game, beating the best in the world and that is an equal achievement. A pretty simple argument.
Actually, the main reason Wimbledon (and the French Open) equalised the prize money is that they'd have got a lot of bad publicity if they didn't. Venus Williams, after getting her request for equal prize money rejected by tournament organisers in 2005 got an essay published in The Times in 2006 that generated a lot of attention to the point where Wimbledon announced in early 2007 that it was equalising the prize funds. The essay's in the spoiler tags. It goes over what Tasty said, and quite a bit more beside.
Venus Williams said:
I feel so strongly that Wimbledon's stance devalues the principle of meritocracy and diminishes the years of hard work that women on the tour have put into becoming professional tennis players.
I believe that athletes especially female athletes in the world's leading sport for women should serve as role models. The message I like to convey to women and girls across the globe is that there is no glass ceiling. My fear is that Wimbledon is loudly and clearly sending the opposite message....
Wimbledon has argued that women's tennis is worth less for a variety of reasons; it says, for example, that because men play a best of five sets game they work harder for their prize money.
This argument just doesnt make sense; first of all, women players would be happy to play five sets matches in grand slam tournaments....
Secondly, tennis is unique in the world of professional sports. No other sport has men and women competing for a grand slam championship on the same stage, at the same time. So in the eyes of the general public the men's and women's games have the same value.
Third, ... we enjoy huge and equal celebrity and are paid for the value we deliver to broadcasters and spectators, not the amount of time we spend on the stage. And, for the record, the ladies final at Wimbledon in 2005 lasted 45 minutes longer than the men's....
Wimbledon has justified treating women as second class because we do more for the tournament. The argument goes that the top women who are more likely also to play doubles matches than their male peers earn more than the top men if you count singles, doubles and mixed doubles prize money. So the more we support the tournament, the more unequally we should be treated! But doubles and mixed doubles are separate events from the singles competition. Is Wimbledon suggesting that, if the top women withdrew from the doubles events, that then we would deserve equal prize money in singles? And how then does the All England Club explain why the pot of women's doubles prize money is nearly £130,000 smaller than the men's doubles prize money?
I intend to keep doing everything I can until Billie Jean's original dream of equality is made real. It's a shame that the name of the greatest tournament in tennis, an event that should be a positive symbol for the sport, is tarnished.
Other arguments that apply are that since 1980 the women's singles tournament winner was receiving prize money equal to 90% of the male winner (less than the amount that prize money has been increasing year on year) made equalising the winnings easy to justify from a financial standpoint. The fact that the difference was so small also served to make two arguments in favour of equalisation: that they're already acknowledging the work done by women since they're getting 90% of what the men earn and that the only reason they don't get the missing 10% is entirely due to male superiority.
The main reasons in opposition is that Women's tennis is only three sets and not 5, and generally the matches are way shorter -
Typically, but not always. Sets on the women's side tend to last longer. There are fewer free points on serve, resulting in longer games. A three set match won on the women's side is likely to be longer than a three set men's match. As Venus pointed out, in 2005 the women's final was three quarters of an hour longer than the men's. That ITF rules state that women play best of three and men best of five is the fault of neither gender's players, and a poor argument in favour of prize money inequality.
For the record, changing the men's tournament playing best of three is a much more interesting argument.
Kvitova had won the final in the time it took Federer to win the first set of the men's final. To win Wimbledon as a woman takes a minimum of 14 sets, this wouldn't be enough to get past the quarter finals for the men.
1) These people aren't paid by the hour. How long it takes to beat the person in front of you has no bearing on prize money received, and nor should it. Unless you want people to drag out their matches in order to increase winnings.
2) If neither Federer or Djokovic are capable of breaking serve, why should they get the same prize money as someone who is?
3) Unless you are proposing payment by the set (which will result in players tanking in order to increase the number of sets played), the number of sets played to win/progress through the tournament is irrelevant.
4) The women's final was between a 20 year old in her first Slam final and a top four player (who beat Sharapova in her last Wimbledon final). The men's was between two of the big four. Shockingly, the match that didn't feature two top 4 players was over more quickly.
The other reason is the popularity. The men's final has about 3 times the audience of the women's final, and if we accept that double's players and disabled players don't get as much because they're games are less popular, then isn't this just an extension?
If you're uncomfortable making an argument, chances are it's not an argument you should be making.
I don't feel right saying that women should get less for what is essentially the same job as men, but when you look at it as a sport and predominantly about entertainment, and pragmatically fewer people are being entertained for less time by the female competitors. I have no solutions, what are your suggestions?
My suggestion is that you sit down and be quiet. Your argument is weak, poorly researched and provides nothing that has not already been said and countered by better debaters than I.
WNBA players get played by their team. This is not the case for tennis players. They get paid depending on how far they advance in the tournament. To get to the final you have to beat the same number of people on either side.
However if Wimbledon has the money and is willing to pay men and women the same then I'm totally fine with that. It seems like a silly thing for people to argue about. At the end of the day it's not going to affect me personally nor will it affect the people who aren't happy about it.
Not Wimbledon, but another event with equal prize money. The US Open's prize money pot equalled less than 15% of their total revenue from the event. The Grand Slams can afford it just fine.
WNBA players get played by their team. This is not the case for tennis players. They get paid depending on how far they advance in the tournament. To get to the final you have to beat the same number of people on either side.
Not Wimbledon, but another event with equal prize money. The US Open's prize money pot equalled less than 15% of their total revenue from the event. The Grand Slams can afford it just fine.
I know they're paid by the teams. What I'm saying is you'll never see the top WBNA player get a contract that is the same as a top NBA player. And a large part of that is that the WNBA doesn't take in as much money as the NBA. It's just an example where I feel it's justified for male athletes to make more money than female athletes playing the same game.
As far as the tennis stuff I know very little about tennis and I was just going based off what was in front of me.
I probably should have looked more into it before I posted on it.
I don't feel right saying that women should get less for what is essentially the same job as men, but when you look at it as a sport and predominantly about entertainment, and pragmatically fewer people are being entertained for less time by the female competitors.
This reminds me of a WNBA player two years ago, saying that the women of her league should be paid the same as men of the NBA because "they're doing the same job."
The problem is that she was trying to make a gender issue out of one that's actually of economics. The men's league brings in so much more money than the women's that the two can't realistically be compared. As much as I'd like to see women's sports operate equally alongside men's, it simply isn't realistic, especially when you're talking about pro basketball.
If (somehow) a court ruled that NBA and WNBA players must be paid equal money, the gals would find themselves without a league to play in.....not because the league decided to fold out of spite but because the teams genuinely couldn't function in an environment in which the player's payroll was 10 times the amount of revenue generated by the team.
Equal pay for equal play is a fine concept, but there are other factors to be considered.
I know they're paid by the teams. What I'm saying is you'll never see the top WBNA player get a contract that is the same as a top NBA player. And a large part of that is that the WNBA doesn't take in as much money as the NBA. It's just an example where I feel it's justified for male athletes to make more money than female athletes playing the same game.
Which doesn't apply to tennis tournaments. WNBA teams don't make the money that NBA teams do. Their players'/teams' merchandise doesn't sell as well as NBA's do. It is therefore justified that WNBA players are paid less than NBA players. However, that doesn't apply here. The players aren't paid based on how many tickets they sell, how many people watch them or anything of the like. When Nadal lost in the first round in 2013, he got paid the same amount as James Blake, despite the fact that more people were watching his match and paid more to be courtside.
This reminds me of a WNBA player two years ago, saying that the women of her league should be paid the same as men of the NBA because "they're doing the same job."
Except that it's not like that at all for the reasons I've been saying in this, and my previous post.
The problem is that she was trying to make a gender issue out of one that's actually of economics. The men's league brings in so much more money than the women's that the two can't realistically be compared. As much as I'd like to see women's sports operate equally alongside men's, it simply isn't realistic, especially when you're talking about pro basketball.
If (somehow) a court ruled that NBA and WNBA players must be paid equal money, the gals would find themselves without a league to play in.....not because the league decided to fold out of spite but because the teams genuinely couldn't function in an environment in which the player's payroll was 10 times the amount of revenue generated by the team.
Why are you talking about the WNBA and its players' wages in a thread about Wimbledon's prize money? There is literally nothing in common between the two beyond that both result in sportspeople being given money. Basketball players are given a salary paid by their team proportional to the team's wealth and their value to the team. Tennis players are paid by the tournament organisers based on how far they advance in the tournament. This is not a salary. The number 1 player in the world will earn the same money as a lower ranked person who reaches the same stage of the competition, regardless of how many people were watching them. At a Grand Slam the women are playing the exact same game on the exact same courts, in front of the exact same people. The only difference is the number of sets played, which as mentioned previously is a bad argument against prize money equality.
Also, it's worth remembering that the Grand Slam's prize pot is generally about 15% of the revenue made from the tournament, so any concerns about the affordability of equal prize money should be dismissed.
Equal pay for equal play is a fine concept, but there are other factors to be considered.
And sadly, you're taking too narrow an approach to the "equal pay, equal pay" issue that's been the subject of much debate in society. It doesn't apply just to Wimbledon, and personally, I think it's acceptable to widen the scope of a topic being discussed in the forum by citing an additional example.
I think prize money should get paid based on popularity, not based on sex. If women's tennis draws more fans then they should get paid more prize money, if men's tennis draws more fans then they should get paid more prize money, I can't think of a more fair system than that. Overall it shouldn't be about sex, it should be simply based on who draws in more fans and ultimately who draws in more revenue.
In regards to the length of matches I think its irrelevant at the end of the day and shouldn't factor in how much the women gets paid. It's tennis, it's not like they are working by the hour or anything and I'm guessing their pay is based on how far they get in the tournament.
At the end of the day you can't treat sports like any other job, its athletic, its tough, its a sport but its also a performance and its also a form of entertainment in a sense. AC/DC is one of the richest groups of all time and the reason for that is how many fans pay to see their shows, buy their albums, buy their merchandise, ect. They bring in more revenue than most groups which is why they get paid more, why should tennis (or any sport for that matter) be any different?
The other reason is the popularity. The men's final has about 3 times the audience of the women's final, and if we accept that double's players and disabled players don't get as much because they're games are less popular, then isn't this just an extension?
Personally, I find it quite an uncomfortable situation. I don't feel right saying that women should get less for what is essentially the same job as men, but when you look at it as a sport and predominantly about entertainment, and pragmatically fewer people are being entertained for less time by the female competitors.
I think the 2 things I've bolded work very closely together and could be an argument for extending the sets in some tournaments, if not all some day.
If the female players aren't getting the same exposure as the male players then surely the time they are appearing on court/TV is a valid reason as to why this is the case? If they were to spend more time on court where more people could get to see them play then that seems like a way for more female stars to emerge.
This will maybe sound sexist but no, they shouldnt be payed as much as men. Reason is simple, womens tennis is totally different sport from mens tennis. First of they play 3 sets at most in difference of mens 5 sets. Second of all, everyone who has seen 1 game of mens tennis and 1 game of womens tennis can see the difference beetween it. Kvitova won Finals in 55 minutes and she will go ahead and lose to some rookie on next tournament as much as easily that she won here. First set on Djokovic- Federer lasted 51 minutes and whole match 3 hours 56 minutes. 4 times as much as womens match and they get same amount of prize money. So, tell me again who gets shorter end here when Kvitova and Bouchard gets same prize as Djokovic and Federer? But with 4 times less sweat, tears and blood.
Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters[edit]
A fourth event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[20] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams, aged 17 and 16 respectively, had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked below 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park.[21] Braasch first took on Venus and beat her 6–2. He then played Serena and won 6–1.[22] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance." He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun."[23]
Men tour should have a higher prize money as it is the main draw. This isn't a gender issue but an economic one as mentioned. My concern is the potential money that the lower ranked men tennis players need is being diverted to the elite women players who just want parity for a PR/feminist victory. Sure the better prize money would definitely help the lower ranked female players too but the men tour first obligation is towards their own before extending help to the other tour.
Not sure if this is true but I feel that most female professional sports league/tour are heavily subsidized by the revenue generated from their male counterparts. I'm all for equal prize money if they pull their fair share from sponsorship deals and ratings. Tennis is unique I guess in that their female stars have the same exposure as the stars on the men's tour. Maria Sharapova, Li Na, the Wiliams etc. are arguably big enough draws on their own without the men.
Rambling now but I guess I'm just trying to say men tennis is not just about the top 10 players but also have many in the lower rankings that are struggling make due and to compete as well. Taking money from them just to pacify some female elite players whose income is much higher just sucks no matter how small the difference is.
Which doesn't apply to tennis tournaments. WNBA teams don't make the money that NBA teams do. Their players'/teams' merchandise doesn't sell as well as NBA's do. It is therefore justified that WNBA players are paid less than NBA players. However, that doesn't apply here. The players aren't paid based on how many tickets they sell, how many people watch them or anything of the like. When Nadal lost in the first round in 2013, he got paid the same amount as James Blake, despite the fact that more people were watching his match and paid more to be courtside.
I promise you, that in terms of other outside revenue brought in, James Blake and Nadal made a LOT more for Tennis than the women did. Why? Because more people watch. Each game may have had the same attendance, whatever that doesn't matter to stations like ESPN. When ESPN sees that Men's Tennis is making more money than the Women's, then they're going to pay more for the better of the two. As they should. If I bring in more customers, I should get more rewards from the cut.
Except that it's not like that at all for the reasons I've been saying in this, and my previous post.
Why are you talking about the WNBA and its players' wages in a thread about Wimbledon's prize money? There is literally nothing in common between the two beyond that both result in sportspeople being given money. Basketball players are given a salary paid by their team proportional to the team's wealth and their value to the team. Tennis players are paid by the tournament organisers based on how far they advance in the tournament. This is not a salary. The number 1 player in the world will earn the same money as a lower ranked person who reaches the same stage of the competition, regardless of how many people were watching them. At a Grand Slam the women are playing the exact same game on the exact same courts, in front of the exact same people. The only difference is the number of sets played, which as mentioned previously is a bad argument against prize money equality.
Why do we compare John Cena to The Rock? Why do we compare LeBron James to Kobe Bryant? Why do we compare WWE to UFC? Because that's how it works, and it's easier for other people not entirely familiar to be allowed to relate somehow. As Mustang said, in sports the men will more than likely beat the women. The only exception being Volleyball. That's not taking anything away from the athletes, because they're all great athletes. But if one is bringing in more money, they should see as much of that money as possible.
Also, it's worth remembering
Also, it's worth remembering that the Grand Slam's prize pot is generally about 15% of the revenue made from the tournament, so any concerns about the affordability of equal prize money should be dismissed.
You're not seeing this from a business standpoint... which athletes are. Why has Kobe Bryant been given a max contract consistently worth way more than anything ever seen by the current LA Clippers or even LA Spark? Because Kobe brings in the fans. No matter what, people will pay to see Kobe. Sure, there may be some die hard basketball fans that will support the LA Spark, and even the LA Clippers will bring in fans as long as Doc Rivers, Chris Paul, Blake Griffin continue to win.... and Sterling stays away from the Staples Center.
It's the same concept here. I don't watch Tennis, but let's say the Williams Sisters are up against each other... don't know if that's possible but let's just go with it. And then let's say that the same game you mentioned from 2013 goes on with James Blake. More than likely, unless there's no definitive gap, the one that gets the most television views should be the one getting the most money. It's why WWE deserves to be in the public while TNA deserves to be well... where TNA is at.
Sadly, you appear to have considered precisely nothing relevant to the discussion at hand.
The question I would ask for tennis is "is it possible for women to qualify for a men's event?"
If so then they should not be paid the same because the women's tour is therefore a lower bracket and the men's tour is technically not a men's tour but a world tour to show off the overall best.
While it is not presented as such in golf, that is how it really is. Adam Scott is not just currently the #1 male player in the world, he is the #1 player full stop as women can compete in 'male' tournaments but aren't good enough.
If the men's and ladies' tours are completely separate in tennis and the authorities can afford it then why not give equal pay? It reflects well on them to be seen to be equal even if things like ratings, sponsorships etc suggest that things are unequal.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
