Prize Money for Women at Wimbledon.

[Ducati]

This has caused a heated debate in our office today..........is it right that the prize money on offer for women at Wimbledon is less than for men?

 

Can't say I have an opinion on this to be honest - great game to play but, in my opinion, bloody awful to watch - but can see both sides of the debate (on the one hand equality between the sexes, on the other the men play more sets).

[WoWo]

Imagine the scenario, a women starts work in your office part time and she gets paid less. After a few months she says she want's equallity with the male workers and the same pay.....

Not that I have a particular stance on the issue. But seems if your doing less work (in the form of less sets) then it's only fair you get less money.

If it's such a big issue then that are free to stay away from the event.

[kempie]

If you just look at the maximum number of matches each sex would have to play, then payment for such should be in the ratio 3:5 or 60% for women.

This is just a capitalist view.

[kempie]

BTW - true equality would be for men to play against women in all sports.

[Loosehead]

Just pay the same and make the women do 5 sets, no problem with that.

[acw]

Loosehead makes a good point there I feel.  Although then wimbledon would go on FOREVER!!!! 

Kempie - I also totally agree with your point.

The only arguement I accept in favour of paying the women less is that much of it is controlled by TV these days and gate prices.  The women provide less entertainment (purely in terms of match time I mean) and so should be paid less. 

WoWo - I don't really get your point.  If you mean that the woman working part time wants to be paid the same amound as the full-time male workers... then the analogy is spot on.  Otherwise... I'm lost!

[Oneeyedvic]

I'm sorry, but I really can't see both sides to this debate. I am all for equal rights, but unfortunately, the people who are claiming it is unfair don't actually want equal rights.

Fact: women cannot play on an equal term with men in a 5 set game of tennis.

As kempie says - to have true equal rights, there would not be a mens' and womens' class - just one prize.

I would be fascinated to hear the argument for 'equal rights' from anyone - really can't see a logical argument

[Gevs1966]

The mens game is more popular with spectators.

The mens game is more popular with tv viewers.

The mens game gains more interest from tv companies.

The mens game therefore generates more income from tv rights.

The mens game attracts more sponsorship money.

The men play more sets in each match.

Where is the debate?

[Greg222]

Prize money is always relative to the revenue taken by the event.   Mens tennis brings in more revenue than the women's.  End of.   It's not sexist at all.

[Greg222]

Prize money is always relative to the revenue taken by the event.   Men's tennis brings in more revenue than the women's. 
Higher cost and sales of tickets and media coverage.  Men's tennis also gets more viewings on TV, revenue for sponsors and advertisers is also more.  

Any sporting event is compared in the same way.   Mens and Women's football and Golf etc.   It's not sexist it's all about the
revenue brought in.

[acw]

Stop repeating my bloomin answers!  Or is it too hard to admit to agreeing with a woman!?!  I even said it all in less words... and they say women talk to much,.,... jeesh!

[WoWo]

acw, yes thats what I meant. To get equality you need things to be equal, 3 sets and 5 sets are not.

[acw]

Good good WoWo - I got you! :-)

[stevie21]

The most compelling argument for me is one that took a while to appear here and is outlined by Gevs1966 and Greg222.

Men's tennis generates more money for a host of different reasons: more popular, more spectators, more TV money etc. However you look at this, it's right (by that logic) that men's prize money is higher. I've not even given any thought to 3 vs 5 sets.

Basically, it's higher for the same reason that football generates higher prize money than top class dominoes.
As much as I'd love equality to exist everywhere NOW, in my mind there's no debate her at all. It's simple maths, not sexism.

[jno]

not sure Gevs' argements aren't circular: men's tennis gets more prize money because it gets more TV time because it gets more sponsorship money because it gets more TV time because it gets more prize money... and so on. If men's matches get more money because they go on longer, should the prizes be reduced for ones that are over quicker? Why don't women get to play more sets? In terms of actual appeal I'd sooner watch one Evert-Navratilova set than a whole day of Pete Sampras playing some other robot (and sooner watch Agassi than Serena). I think the imbalance is sexist. The sex of the player has nothing to do with the quality of their tennis, or the length of time they can play for.

[Oneeyedvic]

jno " The sex of the player has nothing to do with the quality of their tennis, or the length of time they can play for"

well actually yes it does.....a woman cannot compete physically with a man on a tennis court over 5 sets. Nothing sexist about it - just as a woman will never run as fast as a man over 100 metres, never be able to throw a javelin as far as a man etc. (and I am talking about the top 100 - not matey boy down the road - you will get occasional women who can compete with men - but I doubt there would ever be a female winner).

If you want to take sexism out of the equation, then Wimbledon should just be about one prize with men and women competing equally. I bet you that people don't like that and start complaining that not enough women are in the tournament.

Yes, most sports are sexist....but that is because they have to be.

incidentally, I actually prefer watching the women's games as its not just about brute force and serves.

[stevie21]

I also prefer watching the women's game but for entirely different reasons.

[jno]

I wasn't advocating unisex tennis, Oneeyedvic, for the reasons you state; I'm quite happy for women and men to be separated. What I don't agree with is that they should be paid differently. The fact that the workload is 'different' has always been an excuse for paying women less than men; so over the years women have demanded to have the same workload. (They've got it - but still not the same money.) In my opinion - and it's just an opinion - women's tennis is more fun to watch. Men's tennis is about as exciting as Formula 1 racing. And I don't believe for a minute the poor dears just couldn't cope with five sets.

[jno]

sorry, just to clarify my comment about workloads, I meant non-tennis: shopwork, office work, whatever.

[acw]

I'm sure a read a report a few years ago that in athletics we women will out perform men in a few years time!  I can't remember how many "a few" was predicted to be.  However we are get faster at a faster rate than men are.  We're throwing further at a faster rate than men are and jumper higher, longer etc etc .  It was all about evolution and how men's and women's bodies are changing.  I will look for the article now.

PS - When I saw "we" I mean women.  I am absolutely NOT an athelete! :-p

[acw]

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF15/1561.html

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0151.htm

I haven't had time to read either of these in great depth, but people may be interested.  It's not directly on the topic, but it discusses the issue of men vs women in sport.  Interestingly, the top men and women are only about 15 minutes apart in marathons, and I think that a LOT of women would beat a LOT of men, lower down the ranks. 

Many arguements that ARE on this topic are  http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=300

That's not working as a link on my page, but if you google "debatabase prize money equal tennis" you'll get it.  That page also has lots of links to relevant pages. 

I hope this adds something to the debate.  :-)