Can't Be Fair?

[Sqad]

Tennis:

After watching a marathon game between Anderson v Isner and superb match between Djokovic v Nadal and then the damp squid of a two straight set win in the women's final, how can the women justify equal prize money with men?

[jim360]

Easily.

Next question?

[New Judge]

They obviously cannot. I have some interesting stats which I shall share later today or tomorrow,

[Sqad]

Thank you JIm......
I didn't say "can" the prize money be justified, I asked "how can" the prize money be justified.

But thanks for your reply, anyway.

[Prudie]

I think you can only justify it if you're probably young and incredibly PC - or maybe a female tennis player.

[Sqad]

LOL ^^^

[rowanwitch]

In the days when the men's game was all big serves and aces the women offered a bit more variety it's moved back to where the men have brought variety back. They should only get the same if they play the same sets. Either drop the men to three or up the women to five.

Sorry my fellow wimmin, equal pay for equal work.

[gingejbee]

.....damp squid.....that'll be your supper!

[margarettom]

I like women's tennis, but I have to agree you Sqad. Equal prize money doesn't seem fair, but I'm sure it's justified by all the equality legislation around these days.

[Voltage]

I'm all for equal prize money as long as the women play 5 sets as well

[New Judge]

A few facts which may whet our appetites for this debate:

This year, the Gentlemen’s semi-finals (2 matches) comprised 10 sets, 158 games and occupied the court for 711 minutes. By contrast, the Ladies’ quarter-finals, semi-finals and final combined (7 matches) comprised 16 sets, 153 games and 594 minutes. The Ladies' Round Four (8 matches) just outdid the Gentlemen’s semi-finals (by three games and eleven minutes) at 17 sets, 161 games and 722 minutes.

I have these statistics, match by match, round by round going back to 2001. The women rarely occupy the court for more than 40% of the time (looking quickly, 2017 was their best effort at 42%) and rarely play more than 40% of the games played. When looking at the “business end” of the tournament (quarter-finals onwards) the contrast is even more stark.

The situation is preposterous (and I haven't even touched on the quality of the play, which I accept is highly subjective). I know it is said that the women train equally hard and put in just as much effort. This is a spurious comparison. Many players (at lower levels) put in all the effort they can and train as hard as they can. But they would not expect the paying punters and the TV companies to pay large sums to watch them play. The paying public do not pay to watch them train nor are they impressed by the effort they put in. Quite simply, the men provide two thirds of the entertainment but are only paid half the prize money. To address this question, ask yourself this: if the boot was on the other foot and the Ladies provided two thirds of the entertainment would they be happy with just half the money? I very much doubt it.

[thesshhh]

It’s a pathetic PC World. This World has been ruined by PC. BBCTV is a joke due to PC

[goodgoalie]

The answer, Sqad, is they cannot. Don't get me wrong: I am all for equal pay for equal work in every workplace, but - as has been eloquently shown above by NJ - they do not do 'equal work'.

I'm afraid you can't on the one hand say "oh we're only weak laydees and cannot possibly have the strength to manage a full five sets" but then demand equal pay for what is often a boring disappointing two sets. If you want the same prize money, play the same number of sets. A woman can win the singles only playing 14 sets, but the MINIMUM the men have to play is 21. Look at the effort Djokovic and Anderson put into reaching the Men's Final....

Today's Women's Final lasted only just over an hour!

[-SharonA-]

The women's final was a great disappointment. No effort made to run to return volleys. As an avid tennis fan I've yet to find a woman player who is worthy of my support.

[Canary42]

But what if next year it's the other way round Sqad ? Say three straight sets for the men but two tie-break sets for the women followed by a 24-game final set ? Swings and Roundabouts I feel.

[THECORBYLOON]

The men's semi-final was 24-22 in the final set, how often does that happen?

If you're looking at the length of time on court, does that mean a male player who wins every match in three sets should get less than someone who always plays

[THECORBYLOON]

That posted early.
Should the male who wins in three sets get less than the one who takes five sets to win?

Is the three-set player not the better man?

[THECORBYLOON]

If the men's final is won 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 should the prize be reduced because it's over so soon?

[RobNorth]

I think that they probably won this equal pay claim on entertainment value, so duration will not come into it. At Wimbledon, the courts will be sold out whoever is playing and indeed some folk will prefer to watch the women play. The TV outfits, where most of the prize money comes from, may even get more viewers for the ladies games.

[goodgoalie]

On the radio this morning, Judy Murray made an interesting suggestion. In Grand Slam tournaments, men and women should play best-of-three set matches in the 4 qualifying rounds, then in the quarters, semis and final, men AND women should play best-of-five sets.
And I think it's time Wimbledon brought in tie-breakers in the final set at say, 10 - 10.

[ichkeria]

The prize money is not based on the number of games you win, it’s for being champion.
It seems to me to be just as difficult and just as impressive to be the champion female as champion male.
So it’s perfectly ok with me. And would still be ok even if somehow I was the person having to put up the money.
Both sexes would just have to take a huge pay cut :-)