sparky88 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 It's also worth mentioning that tickets for the women's finals at the slams cost as much as half as the men's, so the tournament organisers already acknowledge the difference in pulling power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Why don't they just play some mixed tournaments and see if there is justification for equal pay? They tried that before, some numpty (he was ranked 200+) played the Williams' and wiped the floor with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajwffc Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 They tried that before, some numpty (he was ranked 200+) played the Williams' and wiped the floor with them. It was Karsten Braasch I think it was in the late 90s and he played a set v each sister and won both with one being 6-1 and the other 6-2. The tennis experts think that any player in the men's tour ranked 350+ should beat the top players in the women's tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Why don't they just play some mixed tournaments and see if there is justification for equal pay? Dear Lord, this isn't about actual equal treatment and opportunity, squire. Its about expecting free shit and special treatment because vagina, then screeching "sexism!" when told to do one. Classic feminism. It works a lot of the time to be fair, wouldn't be surprised if Novak went crawling like the other guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 There's been times when the womens game is bigger draw, and times where the mens game has. Should really be paid based on what's more entertaining. Right now the mens is a lot better, but in the 90s early 00s the womens game was a lot better imo. Tennis is one of the few sports that has made the effort to put both the men and womens game on an even platform, and is the better for it thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiGi Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Not too sure how reliable but the BBC already have the men's tour raking in much more than the women's anyway. The only time it seems to be an issue is at slams where the sketch is 'play poorer, play less, earn the same as the men anyway'. As in other sport I don't see the need for gender pay equality in tennis. The best players should earn the most money based on demand and until the best female players can hold a candle to 200+ ranked jobbers (relatively speaking) they shouldn't have too much disagreement with Novak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 The feminism-infested 'progressive' media are taking it well... http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/21/novak-djokovic-equal-pay-tennis http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/mar/21/novak-djokovic-raymond-moore-womens-tennis-response http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/22/sexism_in_pro_tennis_still_pales_in_comparison_to_soccer.html http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/novak-djokovic-was-unwise-to-get-involved-in-the-tennis-pay-debate-a6944826.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/novak-djokovic-sexism-equal-pay-indian-wells_uk_56efb9f8e4b030d552ef7984 It's like a cult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Fyvie Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Equal pay surely means that 5 sets should be situation in women's tennis or alternatively if it is really about equality then women compete directly v men in the tournament. That is equality and fairness. If you're going to troll at least hide it a bit better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Tennis 'grand slams' must be about the only sport where the actual duration / rules of the womens sport are shorter than the mens? Only other cases I can think of are minor things like the hurdles being lower and the javelins lighter in athletics. Even setting aside all the arguments over viewing figures, attendances, ticket prices, interest, etc. and the question of quality - I have never understood how womens tennis can argue for equal prize money, yet only play 60% length matches. If they played the same length matches it would be harder to argue against combined tournaments having equal prizemoney. Incidentally, I think it's a discussion we're going to see more of in future, from the other angle. There are now more frequent grumblings on the different prize money and salaries in team sports like football, rugby, and cricket... both overall, and in particular tournaments (e.g. BBC has periodically "exposed" prize money differences in FA Cup v FA Womens Cup). Two of the buzzwords in the corridors of UK womens football at the moment seem to be "prize re-distribution" and "cross subsidisation". Of course it's a dichotomy. On the one hand, the difference is so huge that some distributing and subsiding is a drop in ocean to the mens. On the other hand, anything that even started on the way towards actually levelling the outcome playing field would be seen as farcical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 If they played the same length matches it would be harder to argue against combined tournaments having equal prizemoney. Incidentally, I think it's a discussion we're going to see more of in future, from the other angle. There are now more frequent grumblings on the different prize money and salaries in team sports like football, rugby, and cricket... both overall, and in particular tournaments (e.g. BBC has periodically "exposed" prize money differences in FA Cup v FA Womens Cup). Two of the buzzwords in the corridors of UK womens football at the moment seem to be "prize re-distribution" and "cross subsidisation". It's not equal pay at the majors, the women are paid approaching double the amount in prize money per game played. The BBC is also partially infested with feminist ideology right now, which explains the "exposing" of the difference in cup final pay. "Prize re-distribution" translated once again means "give us a big slice from the money the men bring in, for free, because vagina". How about building your own brand/league/game from the ground up like men's sports did, instead of waltzing in after the event and expecting to take half (or any) of the pie? Heartening to read the increasing realization of modern feminism's doublethink approach to 'equality', which it wields heavily way beyond just the topic of pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Psychosis Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 It's quite incredible how, even on a topic where he might actually be vaguely right, how banana is still able to come across as a complete and utter woman hating weirdo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 It's not equal pay at the majors, the women are paid approaching double the amount in prize money per game played. That's what I was saying? If they played the same length of matches, then it would be harder to criticise the award of equal prizemoney... You could still use the 'interest' and 'income' side of things, but then again fewer people watch Stan Wawrinka than Roger Federer, while the 'quality' argument is hard to measure objectively. Of course in practice the top womens players often take home more prizemoney than the men, via the doubles. It must be almost unknown for male players in the second week of grand slams to be featuring in the doubles, whereas it is not uncommon in the womens. How many times have the Williams sisters won the womens doubles, for example. That's made possible by the weaker quality pool and the shorter match lengths. Do all tournaments have the same number of rounds for men and women, btw, e.g. 128 entrants? "Prize re-distribution" translated once again means "give us a big slice from the money the men bring in, for free, because vagina". How about building your own brand/league/game from the ground up like men's sports did, instead of waltzing in after the event and expecting to take half (or any) of the pie? I'm not going to agree with your wording, but at the end of the day I suppose it like "positive discrimination"... "prize redistribution" and "cross subsidisation" is actually just "prize distribution" and "subsidisation" bundled up in cuddlier terminology - there's no reciprocal action. There was an interesting point made about 'The Boat Races' recently, which was of course 'The [Mens] Boat Race' until last year. Although TV revenue is divided equally, there is no question that if rights were sold separately the Mens would dwarf the Womens. However, they did increase the length of the Womens Boat Race from 2km to 6.8km, matching the Mens. If they were still racing over 2km the same argument as short matches in womens tennis would apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 It's quite incredible how, even on a topic where he might actually be vaguely right, how banana is still able to come across as a complete and utter woman hating weirdo. He doesn't appear to post on anything bar topics where he can bring up his hatred of women. He must trawl the forum for topics that involve women. Genuinely one of the most detestable posters on the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 It's a no brainer. The men's game is stronger than ever before. Nadal and Federer are the 2 greatest players to have ever played the game, and Djokovic isn't far behind at all - these guys sell tickets and TV audiences. On the other hand you've got women's tennis, which is the weakest I can ever remember it being. Serena Williams humps everyone for fun and Sharapova is a drug cheat. About 15 years ago you'd pay about £30 for a centre court ticket at Wimbledon on day 1 - it costs double that now and people like myself will gladly pay it to see guys like Nadal and Federer strut their stuff. Whenever I go to Wimbledon the stadium is full for the men's matches, it empties for the women's matches and fills up again for the men's evening match. Because of guys like Federer they've been able to build a new court 2 and centre court has a roof now. They always said it'd cost too much to build a roof over Arthur Ashe, but now it's being done because guys like Federer and Djokovic are selling tickets at $200 a pop. The arenas are always 60% empty for women's matches, even involving Serena Williams How much women's tennis do you see on on Sky sports? Grand slams women dont even play best of 5. It's a total joke and Serena Williams should keep her big mouth shut. Andy Murray should stop playing the morally superiour w**k for once in his life too. It has been covered already in the topic but there seems to be peaks and troughs in terms of popularity in both genders tours. Serena Williams' domination of the last few years has seriously diminished the interest in women's tennis. You will find that tournaments where both men and women play at the same time the prize money is equal. I don't really have a problem with that. With the emergence of Djokovic's domination in the last 18 months and it looks like it's here to stay, we might see a similar disinterest in the mens' game in four years time. It becomes difficult when the WTA stages it's own tournaments and prize money is solely made via their commercial terms, TV revenue, tickets sales and merchandising. The lack of competition right at the top of the game hinders the women's game. When Hingis, Kournikova, Williams sisters were all active they sold more tickets and got more revenue. Your last point is dumb. You don't see women's tennis on Sky Sports as they lost the rights to it to BT Sport. The women's US Open Final was sold out long before the men's final last year. Before Serena's shock loss in the semi final the cheap seats were selling at around $1k. Equal pay surely means that 5 sets should be situation in women's tennis or alternatively if it is really about equality then women compete directly v men in the tournament. That is equality and fairness. Every single Grand Slam event has stated that they don't want women to play best of five matches due to scheduling issues it would bring (I dare say this is a nice logical excuse). The women's tour repeatedly asked to play best out of five to ensure equal prize money (certainly was a great bluff to play). Women will never want to play with men, as generally they couldn't compete. Serena Williams would never make the top 100. It has been said that to actually make money from playing professional tennis you have to be inside the top 100 constantly. There wouldn't be any professional female tennis players if it was mixed. There will never be an equal distribution between the two tours as the tour that earns more money will want to carry on making it. It's not equal pay at the majors, the women are paid approaching double the amount in prize money per game played. The BBC is also partially infested with feminist ideology right now, which explains the "exposing" of the difference in cup final pay. "Prize re-distribution" translated once again means "give us a big slice from the money the men bring in, for free, because vagina". How about building your own brand/league/game from the ground up like men's sports did, instead of waltzing in after the event and expecting to take half (or any) of the pie? Heartening to read the increasing realization of modern feminism's doublethink approach to 'equality', which it wields heavily way beyond just the topic of pay. It certainly isn't equal pay at the majors. How much do women get for winning golf tournaments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Every single Grand Slam event has stated that they don't want women to play best of five matches due to scheduling issues it would bring (I dare say this is a nice logical excuse). The women's tour repeatedly asked to play best out of five to ensure equal prize money (certainly was a great bluff to play). Women will never want to play with men, as generally they couldn't compete. Serena Williams would never make the top 100. It has been said that to actually make money from playing professional tennis you have to be inside the top 100 constantly. There wouldn't be any professional female tennis players if it was mixed. On the logical front, would this not be relieved with no top women's players playing doubles? On the 2nd point is success and pay based on that success not the whole aim in having a fair and equal society? Should we actually care about how many women are professional compared to men? If all are given the same opportunity to succeed what does it matter the genitals they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayia Napa Daz Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Loki: I certainly don't remember Sky covering the WTA tour to the extent they've covered 1000 events and now even some 500 events. Even so, I'd imagine Sky would be far less troubled by 'losing' the rights to WTA events than ATP ones. Bottom line is that, like it or not, Raymond Moore is more or less spot on with his assessment of how the game has progressed. The Williams' rivalry generated an amount of interest in the sport from far and wide but nowhere near to the extent that Federer/Nadal did. It reenergised the sport entirely. Djokovic certainly holds an amount of dominance on the male circuit just now, but guys like Murray, Nadal, Federer, Wawrinka etc are all still providing tennis of an exceptional quality, and his dominance won't be as severe as that of Williams. Also worth remembering how poor her competition is. It isn't right that woman get equal prize money, not when the standard is verging on embarrassing at times and there's been countless classics from the men's side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 The problem with this debate is that tennis playing is an incredibly unusual profession for numerous reasons and it therefore can't really tell us anything about gender pay gaps in general, either historically or currently. Some people treat it as an interesting debate and focus on the unusual features of tennis as a profession but others, mainly bitter men it has to be said, seem to hold it up as an argument in favour of the idea women are inherently inferior and. against the idea that women have generally been maltreated in employment compared to their male counterparts, throughout recorded time. I would note that in the interest of balance that tennis players aren't paid by the hour and Cilic and Nishikori get just as much for reaching a US Open final despite getting far fewer viewers than Federer and Nadal would've. Edited because I confused Raonic and Cilic which doesn't speak well of either player's ability to draw in casual tennis fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 It's quite incredible how, even on a topic where he might actually be vaguely right, how banana is still able to come across as a complete and utter woman hating weirdo. He doesn't appear to post on anything bar topics where he can bring up his hatred of women. He must trawl the forum for topics that involve women. Genuinely one of the most detestable posters on the site. Is that man holding feminist ideology responsible for the standards it claims? Advocating reward by merit? That women-hater is attacking women! Fortunately, more and more posters are willing to engage fairly reasonably on these kind of issues rather than reliably launch directly into sniveling white knighty personal attacks. You'll get there in time. Be strong, brothers. --- In the meantime, some inspiring words from MMA legend and women-hating weirdo Ronda Rousey in response to a reporter in Australia, which is currently going through a quite severe ideological feminism infestation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigOutYourSoul Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I've been trying to have a think about this. If you have a company, company A, which produces a product which has no gender, completely generic. This product is produced at two factories which make their sales independently and staff are remunerated based on sales volumes and demand - overall contribution - in their own factories. Factory A: Demand 1,000,000 Contribution Per unit £10 Factory B: Demand 1,500,000 Contribution Per Unit £15 Factory A: total contribution £10,000.000 Factory B total contribution £22,500,000 The total number of workers in each factory is 64, 128 overall. As it currently stands workers in Factory A will receive £156,250 each per year and workers in Factory B £351, 563 based on total sales in their respective factories. Workers in Factory A are petitioning that the sales should be combined and split evenly between the workers in the two factories as they are both producing the the same product - despite the fact that the demand and contribution in Factory B are higher. This would result in all staff being paid an equal £253,906 per year. The staff in Factory B are arguing that they have worked hard to ensure increased demand and contribution and should be remunerated to reflect this fact. In this scenario, should workers in Factory A be paid the same as workers in Factory B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I've been trying to have a think about this. I think an individual Sales job analogy works better as it's reflects the reality that you reap what you sow / are rewarded based on your relative contribution to the company's success rather than which office you work in. In this scenario, what an Office A salesperson is saying is that if they are the top salesperson in Office A, they should be rewarded the same as the top salesperson in Office B because they are an 'Office A-er' (which is an incredibly important characteristic for some reason), regardless of the disparity in performance. Even if they put in <60% of the work, bring in lower sales $, and bring in lower quality sales. And so on down the ranking - A 2nd = B 2nd; A 3rd = B 3rd. More/Worse than this, Office A is asking to plunder some of the fruits of Office B's labour. Sorry, I mean "prize redistribute". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.