At the risk of reopening old wounds, why should the Wimbledon women's finalists receive the same money as the men, when they play maybe 25% of the time the men do and limit their game to max 3 sets? Never seen any remote justification for that

Do the ticket prices get reduced for the women's games? Do less people watch the women's games?

I don't think the tickets are split by sexes, are they? I think you get tickets by the court by the day. So there will be no way to differentiate whether people go to Wimbledon to watch the men or the women.

Aren't the viewing figures much lower for the women's than men's games?

My argument is based on like work. On average, let's say the women work 1 hour; the men 3 hours. I don't know of any other identical job where the women would be paid the same as the men for 1/3rd hours worked.

Don't see that is relevant, if they did the same work then they should get the same pay. They don't.

Because, despite what you have rightly pointed out, in this sooper dooper politically correct age someone decided it was unfair / unacceptable / not good press / possible discrimination for the men to get paid more.

The tennis authorities have deemed that the best way to decide women's games is best of 3 sets and men's best of 5 sets.

If the pay was based upon sets played then the best men's player might be playing 3 sets every match because he never loses a set. So should he be getting less money because he doesn't have to do as much work as an average player who needs 5 tough sets to win a match?

If women are forced to switch to 5 sets and the women's game suffers as a result, who does that help?

No idea.

I've watched some women's tennis. Watched hardly any men's tennis.

Why?


Oh, yes, because that has really ever happened, or is really likely ever to happen.



That's a pretty ludicrous argument. Maybe Messi should be on minimum wage since he finds it so easy to score goals?

Anway, you are looking from the wrong end, presumably because you can't construct an argument from the right end. Which is, that whilst there will obviously be variations in the length of every match, nevertheless the starting point is that the men have to play best of 5 (so cannot ever play less than 3 sets even in a whitewash) - whereas the women don't, they play best of 3. I said there is no justification, in those circumstances, to be paid the same, and I note you don't suggest one.


If a hypothetical thing happened, and then on the back of that, another hypothetical thing happened, whom would that help? I'm sorry, there's not enough "question" there to make any sensible reply, and I don't see that we had the initial aim of "helping" anyone.

But are you suggesting that the women's game [iwould[/i suffer? Or might? If so, then you need to explain why it would suffer as a result, what form might this suffering take, and why? What scenario do you predict?

I agree entirely with Martina Navratilova that ALL games should be best of 3 sets, not 5 (as they often are) but I do not see any logic at all, if a tournament chooses to have best-of-5 matches for men, why the men should not be paid significantly more for that inequality.

*cough* Nadal *cough* Roland Garros *cough*



I'm with you on the point, though. I agreed with complaints about the size of the disparity in pay in tennis, but I do think it's harder to make a case for equal pay when the 'maximum' length of a women's match is the 'minimum' length of a men's match (obviously in terms of sets, not games or time).

Dunno. Probably have something to do with the differing nature of men's and women's tennis. Men's tennis is based on power and stamina. Women generally have less power and stamina so there game has far more rallies.

If men don't like playing 5 sets then they could campaign for parity with women.

I think there will be some women who would prefer 5 set matches.



I'm not saying it is. But you want a pay system based upon how hard a tennis player works. But if there's a standout male tennis player who's far better than his opponents he won't have to work as hard as a group of the top 5 women who all had similar ability.



Messi earns whatever he and his club negotiate. Tennis players compete for prize money. You're arguing there is no reason for women to earn the same as men. There are reasons, you just don't want to accept them.



I have suggested some reasons. The money that comes into Wimbledon is not differentiated between men and women. So it is far easier to just split the prize money equally, rather than weighting the pay based upon how many sets are played.



The tennis authorities have come to the decision that the men's game should be best of 5 sets and the women's game 3 sets. You want men to be paid more than the women because of that. A likely response to that would be that women would go to 5 sets, or men brought down to 3. A decision on the game based directly upon financial considerations.



I could care less about tennis anyway. But would I support RL adding on 10 minutes if the players were going to get more money because of it? No, because it would be a decision based on the player's finances, not on what was best for the game.



The tennis authorities don't seem to agree with MN.

Rather more on topic, [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/Won't somebody think of the children![/url. Or how adults see sex where there is none.

Leaving aside that your view is rooted in the sexist attitudes that caused the male establishment to have shorter women's games in the first place( because it 'would be far too strenuous for the pretty little delicate things') it's obvious that the physically much bigger top men have more power, but I entirely disagree about "stamina". In the 2011 Australian Open, the Schiavone -v- Kuznetsova game lasted 4 hours 44 minutes (47 games in total), finishing 6–4, 1–6, 16–14. Nobody died, collapsed, or ground to a halt through lack of stamina, and I doubt either would claim to be some sort of freak stamina-wise in the women's game.

IMHO maybe in the 90s women's tennis perhaps had more rallies, but that would be due to being a bit of a golden era. I am certain that's not true currently. Mens games can go on for 4 or more hours. As a rule, women's games are over in an hour or less. Do the maths.


I suppose the physically fittest ones would, as that would give them a big advantage in longer games against any less fit opponents. Why though should women not be expected to attain a similar level of physical fitness as the men?


Bollox. When did I ever say any such thing? Stop making stuff up. All I have ever argued is that for equal pay, there should be equal conditions, whether that is all 3-set matches or all 5-set matches. How much "work" goes in would be an entirely subjective thing, different in every match, regardless of length or sex.


Again, no I am not! I am arguing that they should play the same length matches. And that if they do not, then it is unfair for one set of players to have to play 5 set matches for the same money as another set of players who only have to play 3 set matches. Like pay for like work.


If there are reasons, you don't seem able to articulate them


Of course as a simple observation that's true, but don't make me laugh. Are you seriously suggesting that if they split it into a men's week, and a women's week, ticket revenues would be broadly equal?


It isn't at all. First, anyone with a calculator and a working battery (or even a piece of paper and something to write with) could split the prize money 25/75, 60/40 or whatever in seconds! Surely you wouldn't argue that splitting prize money (say) 40% - 60% (say) is intellectually harder than 50/50?

Second I have not advocated "weighting the pay based upon how many sets are played". I advocate them all playing matches of the same max length. That's it. All I want is same rules for any tennis player. Regardless of gender. It doesn't matter how many games/points/sets they then actually play in any given game. They would be working under the identical laid-down match conditions, and that seems the only fair way to me. Isner and the other fella never got paid an extra penny for playing that 11 hour match, and I never suggested for a second that they should. (But incidentally, had the game been best of 3, Isner would have lost 6–4, 3–6, 6–7).

Pointless straw man. A better comparison would women's rugby league. Do they play shorter matches than men, due to perhaps fragility and lack of stamina? Er, no.




I presume you mean the Wimbledon authorities? It is pointless to say they "don't seem to agree"; if they agreed, then there'd be no set disparity, and we wouldn't be having this conversation!

PS I just looked at the thread title - thread drift that would make Pangea blush

I have no idea whether there is a disparity between the popularity of men's and women's tennis matches.

If men are the ones who bring in the most money then they should be paid more. Revenue brought in is far more important than match length IMO.

Just had a quick check, and part of the reason that Wimbledon changed to pay parity was that they were bringing them in line with all the other open tournaments. So it's not only Wimbledon that came to the decision, but the rest of the world had already decided that.



But how do you decide whether the prize money should be split 75/25 or 60/40?



And if the men are happy with 5, the women happy with 3, what difference does it make to you?



I'd argue that women's RL would be better served to start their game off from scratch and change the rules to benefit WRL, rather than trying to copy the men's game and fail badly.

I'd suggest that women's RL that played 4 quarters of 10 minutes, with limits over the aggression involved, would far better serve to promote RL to women than sticking with the game that is set up for professional male RL.



All the tennis tournaments offer equal prize money. All the tennis tournaments have best of 3 sets for women and best of 5 for men. So none of them agree with MN. And when did MN come to the conclusion that men and women should play the same length matches?

I'm not a tennis fan. I couldn't care less about the sport. But tennis is pretty much unique in that it has great success and great exposure at male and female level. Just thinking about it, but apart from athletics there's pretty much nothing else in the world that can compare. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that women get offered the same prize money as men get if there isn't a huge disparity in the amount the games bring in.

Me neither.
I don't care who plays longest or even who plays at all.
Ditto football.
Both are girl's games despite being played by men.

fair enough, but a different question, though. And not applicable to Wimbledon, which pretty much sells out, without knowing who you might be watching.


I know Wimbledon's reasons, it's just i fundamentally disagree with them, as the disparity is unfair on the men.


I don't I split it 50/50, but on the basis men and women play same length mathces.


Silly. As in anything else in life, there is a rainbow of varying viewpoints. Second, why does it need to personally make a difference to me? As, obviously, it makes absolutely no personal difference to me, then I can offer my opinion on a completely unbiased basis. What I am in favour of is the sexes being treated equally, and here they are not. Are you saying I'm not entitled to a view, because I don't play on the tour?


No, they actually don't.

Er, or not. The truth is it is ONLY the grand slam tournaments where the men play best of 5. ALL the rest play best of 3, and so they comply with my logic, men and women all play best of 3, men and women play for equal prize money. You need to know your subject better.


But if it's fair (as it plainly is) that in all the ATP Tour games they all play best of 3 and the prize money is equal, how do you justify the men playing best of 5 in Grand Slam events yet the prize money still being equal? It's simply unfair. The simple analysis is the men are obliged to play extra sets for the same money, based solely on gender, and I just do not think that is right. Anyway, I reckon anything else said would just be repetitive so maybe we should just leave it at that?

Eff off, ya sexist so and so!

Tennis players recieve prize money rather than wages. Their other income will be decided by the sponsors. They are walking adverts rather than employees. Pay is probably decided by how much exposure can be potentially made for their brand.

I agree. It was in response to LGJM's post regarding ticket prices.