Equal prize money at Wimbledon
- Thread starter Hodders
- Start date
Men play more sets than women and therefore should get more money.
Also to the OP, men .vs. women - in almost all scenario's I think that men would beat the women 1v1. Then again, against Williams' I think maybe another story. (They are quite beefy).
Final point is that women's entertainment is generally quite entertaining
(Exception again, perhaps when watching Williams' sisters playing)
Also to the OP, men .vs. women - in almost all scenario's I think that men would beat the women 1v1. Then again, against Williams' I think maybe another story. (They are quite beefy).
Final point is that women's entertainment is generally quite entertaining
(Exception again, perhaps when watching Williams' sisters playing)
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It is a bit of a tricky argument to justify, equal pay for equal work is fine idea but the women play fewer matches, get less exposure typically (until Andy Murray went out Serena Williams as defending champion hadn't been on Centre Court this Wimbledon) and the overall standard of the pool of players is less - pick almost any of the top 50 in mens tennis and you will get a solid game (aside from the top two perhaps since Federer and Nadal are a class apart at the moment), pick the same amount from womens tennis and you won't get anywhere near such a competitive game when outside the top 10 and the quality drops off markedly more so in the womens game when you reach 100 than it does for the mens.
However if the sponsors are willing to put up the same prize money and the viewing figures aren't severely biased then it doesn't leave too much of a position to criticise either. It is hardly the top players fault that there isn't such a pool of talent as exists in the mens game for instance.
However if the sponsors are willing to put up the same prize money and the viewing figures aren't severely biased then it doesn't leave too much of a position to criticise either. It is hardly the top players fault that there isn't such a pool of talent as exists in the mens game for instance.
The fact that women play less sets isn't relevant as lots of top women players have said they would be happy to play 5-set matches.
Why men should be paid more though it because the game attracts more attention, the prize money is after all funded from things like tv contracts and ticket sales, the mens game has a higher attendance in matches and has higher tv viewing figures.
Why men should be paid more though it because the game attracts more attention, the prize money is after all funded from things like tv contracts and ticket sales, the mens game has a higher attendance in matches and has higher tv viewing figures.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 6,674
- Location
- East Sussex
Women should play vs men if they want equal money.
Otherwise prize money should be done by popularity of the event (if more people watch women, they get more money).
With the enjoyment to be had from watching the womens events, I would expect the womens prize money to rise
But only if they stop grunting.
Otherwise prize money should be done by popularity of the event (if more people watch women, they get more money).
With the enjoyment to be had from watching the womens events, I would expect the womens prize money to rise
But only if they stop grunting.
Why? its not about how much you play, its if you prove yourself to be the best under whatever rules you are playing under.
Well Tommy Haas had his say last Feb about the equal pay debate at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6388351.stm
Also Mardy Fish and Andy Murray both understood and welcomed the equal pay thing. Murray cited arguments about the sponserships men get compared to women and also the smaller tour events the Men get more money anyways!
The thing is though I've watched some dpressingly poor matches int thwe womens side of the tournament this year and my god is it woeful. I mean the 6-0 6-1's and the 6-1 6-1's are rife as always and their matches last no time at all!
Despite the fact Federer has played the least amount of court time I think in this years tournament i think it will be interesting to compare his total time(Should he get to the final) played compared to the women's champion at the end of it all.
Im pretty sure there will be a big difference! I also dont believe they should get equal pay on the fact their game is much shorter than the mens and this should be reflected. They want equal pay then they should put on an equal length of entertainment and sustained performance. I am not denying that they train as hard as men or anything but they all want to be treated equally after all dont they?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6388351.stm
Also Mardy Fish and Andy Murray both understood and welcomed the equal pay thing. Murray cited arguments about the sponserships men get compared to women and also the smaller tour events the Men get more money anyways!
The thing is though I've watched some dpressingly poor matches int thwe womens side of the tournament this year and my god is it woeful. I mean the 6-0 6-1's and the 6-1 6-1's are rife as always and their matches last no time at all!
Despite the fact Federer has played the least amount of court time I think in this years tournament i think it will be interesting to compare his total time(Should he get to the final) played compared to the women's champion at the end of it all.
Im pretty sure there will be a big difference! I also dont believe they should get equal pay on the fact their game is much shorter than the mens and this should be reflected. They want equal pay then they should put on an equal length of entertainment and sustained performance. I am not denying that they train as hard as men or anything but they all want to be treated equally after all dont they?
I would probably support women having equal prize money if they played 5 sets. Doesn't stop womens' tennis being boring though.
If women want equal prize money then they should expect to have to put in the same shift as men.
Female footballers play 90min games (and for a lot less money I might add) so it's not like they're incapable.
Last edited:
I mentioned this to a few people at the start of Wimbledon. I cannot understand for the life of me why they gave the women the same amount of money. If they played 5 sets, then fair enough, but they don't. So it makes no sense. And it's not like the women can't play 5 sets. All the top women players are EASILY fit enough to play 5 sets. Bloody lazy buggers.
No! We dont want more womens tennis, its just not as entertaining as the mens.
They shouldnt get equal pay, it doesnt make sense, everything is stacked against them.
It would be good if the women who want to have equal pay could go and play in the mens.. that'd learn em.
Im not usually sexist, and im a big fan/player of tennis, but this grinds my gears.
don't think it's the womens fault that they play only 3 sets, plus a lot of the mens games are 3 sets anyway - Federer has won the last four wimbledons and how many sets did he drop? (I don't know, but he has a lot of 3 set games). I think equal prize money is the right decision, but I think the organisers should change the womens game to five sets, this may also put more emphasis on stamina and tactics in the womens game over sheer power.
