T W A U ... The Chase....today's...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Tennis Prize Money
Following on from Butterbun’s question about the tennis, and my remarks about equal prize money I thought it might be worth examining a few statistics. In Melbourne, even allowing for Andy Murray’s “meltdown” (where he lost 12 of the last 13 games) their match still lasted three hours and forty minutes. Meanwhile the “tightly contested” Ladies’ Final lasted just half as long at 1h51mins.
This phenomenon is not unique. In the Wimbledon finals last year Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer took four minutes short of four hours to settle their differences. Meanwhile Eugenie Bouchard was demolished in just 55 minutes.
I have chosen these two finals because I have the statistics readily to hand. However this discrepancy is by no means unusual and is not limited to the finals. Does anyone really, really, believe the Ladies deserve equal prize money?
This phenomenon is not unique. In the Wimbledon finals last year Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer took four minutes short of four hours to settle their differences. Meanwhile Eugenie Bouchard was demolished in just 55 minutes.
I have chosen these two finals because I have the statistics readily to hand. However this discrepancy is by no means unusual and is not limited to the finals. Does anyone really, really, believe the Ladies deserve equal prize money?
Answers
As I stated in the other thread, I feel the women tennis players let down women athletes of every other sport who have had to campaign hard to compete over the same distances as men (i.e. marathon runners, rowers etc). If women can compete over the 'ironman' distance in triathlon, why can't tennis players manage to play up to 5 sets?
17:50 Sun 01st Feb 2015
I am both female and a tennis fan. I don't enjoy the women's game as much as the men's. I only have an interest in the women's matches if there is a female Brit playing. I'm sorry, but it's boring to watch, and can't stand the noise many of them make nor Maria Sharapova's annoying habits.
Having said that, they should get equal prize money. Is it Serena Williams's fault that she is so good that she demolishes her early opponents? Why should she get less prize money than Djokovic? Ok, make them play 5 sets if you like.
I take NJ's point that they haven't actively campaigned to play 5 sets, but BJK did say she would be happy for women to play 5 sets.
Having said that, they should get equal prize money. Is it Serena Williams's fault that she is so good that she demolishes her early opponents? Why should she get less prize money than Djokovic? Ok, make them play 5 sets if you like.
I take NJ's point that they haven't actively campaigned to play 5 sets, but BJK did say she would be happy for women to play 5 sets.
Yes precisely: they are being paid for being the champion, not for the number of sets they play. Most women probably would prefer to play best of five sets but if they are not allowed to it hardly is much of a case for being denied equal prize money. I don't see too many women campaigning for the status quo in terms of number of sets in major tournaments, whereas some have campaigned for equality.
If the tennis authorities decided that all grand slams should be best of 5 sets and there was a protest against that, then I would have more sympathy with the argument.
If the tennis authorities decided that all grand slams should be best of 5 sets and there was a protest against that, then I would have more sympathy with the argument.
One other argument in favour of equal prize money is that perhaps the money you pump into the women's game, the more investment there will be, the more youngsters will be able to pick up the sport and take it seriously, and perhaps in the longer term the higher the quality of new players in future.
It's not a perfectly convincing argument but I thought I should suggest it. At any rate prize money is based on an assessment of the funds available, the prestige of the competition and the organisers' view of what's bringing spectators to the game. It should have nothing to do with hours worked. By that argument the prize money in the men's game should also be based on hours spent on the court, so that, say, a gruelling five-set win should lead to more money than a crushing victory in straights. That doesn't happen (although maybe it should!), which invalidates the "but women spend less time on court!" argument.
Quality-wise, I agree that at the moment men's tennis is more enthralling, though.
It's not a perfectly convincing argument but I thought I should suggest it. At any rate prize money is based on an assessment of the funds available, the prestige of the competition and the organisers' view of what's bringing spectators to the game. It should have nothing to do with hours worked. By that argument the prize money in the men's game should also be based on hours spent on the court, so that, say, a gruelling five-set win should lead to more money than a crushing victory in straights. That doesn't happen (although maybe it should!), which invalidates the "but women spend less time on court!" argument.
Quality-wise, I agree that at the moment men's tennis is more enthralling, though.
It'll never change while sponsors and TV companies are putting the money up for prizes. Or rather, it will only change if these businesses can be persuaded that it should be.
Grand Slam events take two weeks, if all the women's matches could go to five sets, you'd have to allow at least another two or three days to get all the matches in. Imagine a rain-disrupted Wimbledon with the women playing five sets, you'd have to make provision for almost another week. I don't think I could stand a third week of Sue Barker.
Grand Slam events take two weeks, if all the women's matches could go to five sets, you'd have to allow at least another two or three days to get all the matches in. Imagine a rain-disrupted Wimbledon with the women playing five sets, you'd have to make provision for almost another week. I don't think I could stand a third week of Sue Barker.
"New Judge has stated ‘Pay attention, boys and girls. Brainiac is correct.’ whereas he is wrong - douglas9401 is correct."
You're not paying attention either, Hymie"
Bainiac mentions the number of sets required to win a Grand Slam Tournament (which requires seven victories) not the number of games needed to win a single match.
You're not paying attention either, Hymie"
Bainiac mentions the number of sets required to win a Grand Slam Tournament (which requires seven victories) not the number of games needed to win a single match.
I believe the argument for equal pay is that most of the work is done off the court, i.e. in training etc.
The thing is that it's not about the work. If it was about the work, then neither the women nor the men would deserve to be paid anywhere near what they are paid.
The reason players are paid £1M for winning Wimbledon, about 40 times the average annual wage in this country, is not the work they do but the entertainment value they provide. The market and audience for women's tennis simply isn't the same as for men's tennis, so the women don't deserve to be paid as much.
Likewise, there is no demand to watch women's tennis over five sets - it would not be more entertaining. They could maybe vary the rules a little so that it would be impossible for a women's final to be won 7-6 7-6 (e.g. by scrapping a second set tiebreak if the first set was won on a tiebreak) but, other than that, three sets is fine.
The thing is that it's not about the work. If it was about the work, then neither the women nor the men would deserve to be paid anywhere near what they are paid.
The reason players are paid £1M for winning Wimbledon, about 40 times the average annual wage in this country, is not the work they do but the entertainment value they provide. The market and audience for women's tennis simply isn't the same as for men's tennis, so the women don't deserve to be paid as much.
Likewise, there is no demand to watch women's tennis over five sets - it would not be more entertaining. They could maybe vary the rules a little so that it would be impossible for a women's final to be won 7-6 7-6 (e.g. by scrapping a second set tiebreak if the first set was won on a tiebreak) but, other than that, three sets is fine.
I agree with most other answers in here, if it is about equality in pay then the structure of the tournament should be the same for men and women.
Women's tennis is entertaining to watch, the gap in entertainment between mens and womens matches isn't as big as it is for some other sports, for example NBA vs WNBA.
But it does make sense that men should be paid more when they play longer matches than women.
Women's tennis is entertaining to watch, the gap in entertainment between mens and womens matches isn't as big as it is for some other sports, for example NBA vs WNBA.
But it does make sense that men should be paid more when they play longer matches than women.
