Women tennis players being paid the same as men

[titch juicy]

Fair or not fair?

Should prize money be determined by demand or by toughness of task? Or neither?

For the record, i believe that just because Women play less sets in tournaments, it doesn't mean that work any less hard.

But, in all areas of entertainment and sport, prize money and wages seems to be determined by demand.

[Loz]

I think tennis is one of the few sports where the male and female versions are on par with watchability. But the figures still say that the income of the men's game is still greater than that of women's.

I don't think how hard they work comes into it. Football is a good analogy here - championship teams work just as hard as premiership teams, but the salaries aren't comparable because it doesn't have the same spectator base and, thus, income. In fact, Last year someone complained about the salary difference between international level male and female footballers, calling it a 'gender pay gap', which somewhat ignored the underlying issue about why this is so (arguably, a bit like some of the wider gender pay gap arguments :) ). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/11693209/Is-Wayne-Rooney-260-times-better-than-England-women.html

Being a cricket tragic, I watch a few women's matches and, although the quality has improved amazingly over the last 10 years, the men's game is still far ahead in terms of watchability.

You can equally ask why top level footballers get paid more than rugby players, or cricketers, or netballers. Because it all lies in the question, 'can the women's game (in whatever sport) support equal salaries' and the answer to that is in the spectator base, both live and on TV. Women's football teams have attracted decent crowds of late - the latest Womens World Cup being a case in point - but it is still nowhere near that of the men. Women's netball superleague and netball internationals got very good coverage on Sky. But none of it is enough to support the same level of salaries.

[Otta]

Heard Novak Djokovic on the radio this morning, and he was saying he felt men deserved higher pay because they still draw more attention to the events.

I'm not sure I agree morally, but with sports it is often about who attracts the most TV money and that sort of thing.

Personally I've always preferred watching the women's game, and not for pervy reasons, I just find it more entertaining.

[Jeremy]

But given we are (presumably) talking about tournaments with both men and womens competitions, where ticketing, TV rights, advertising etc all come as a "package", is it right to try to differentiate the income they bring in?

I'm not convinced that number of sets played is a great argument, because taking account of all the training and travelling, you have to assume they work just as hard as the men year round. Although saying that, I'd like to see the women playing five sets in the quarters/semis/finals of grand slams.

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally I've always preferred watching the

> women's game, and not for pervy reasons, I just

> find it more entertaining.

I think this was the case in the past, but these days (since the decline of the serve-and-volley) I think the men's is more entertaining.

[Loz]

Interestingly, ticket prices for the men's and women's finals day at Wimbledon are different (?175 for men's, ?145 for women's). Not sure why this is the case, since both are well oversubscribed.

[Otta]

Maybe, I can't honestly say I watch a lot these days full stop (not even Wimbledon). But used to watch a fair bit.

I agree number of sets isn't a good enough argument, especially when the women have said "okay we'll play 5".

[LondonMix]

I think this, like all sport's compensation should be determined by how much revenue to your bring in. Spectator sports are a form of entertainment and effort has nothing to do with it. There are lots of tougher sports with lower pay.

Like Otta, I know a lot of people who prefer the women's game (or at least used to when the men's game as all huge hitting and less rallies). What brings in higher viewership figures on TV?

My guess is that this probably fluctuates depending on who is in the final regardless of gender so different levels of prize money is probably antiquated. The male and female super starts are the biggest draw irrespective of gender.

[titch juicy]

The men's Wimbledon final has twice as many viewers; three times some years.

But, the women's final being on Saturday lunchtime, when people are more likely to be busy might have a small part to play in that.

[????]

the way to really solve it would be to make all tennis open (same for golf where this argument appears quite often) - but how many woman would then be in the top 10 or 100? So, to be frank, this looks like PC GONE MAD

[LondonMix]

That's a silly argument quids. If the women generate less money than so be it. They don't need to be able to physically beat the men to earn as much.

Women's football in the US is as popular (maybe more up until recently) than the men's. Its not about who is strongest though giving both equal opportunity to generate revenue matters. Spectator sports is entertainment.

[LondonMix]

Yes but for the US open, the women's game draws more viewers, particularly when Serena is playing than the men's game. The women's final is on a Sunday and the men's is on a Monday. Again, because the women's final with Serena is must see in the US, its gotten the prime viewership slot for years now.

Its all about if the country hosting it has one of their superstars in the championship or if its a classic head to head.

Its much more about the individual players (IMO) than women's game vs. men's game, which is justification enough for parity in pay.

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The men's Wimbledon final has twice as many

> viewers; three times some years.

>

> But, the women's final being on Saturday

> lunchtime, when people are more likely to be busy

> might have a small part to play in that.

[titch juicy]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes but for the US open, the women's game draws

> more viewers when Serena is playing than the men's

> game.

>

> Its all about if the country hosting it has one of

> their superstars in the championship or if its a

> classic head to head.

>

> Its much more about the individual players (IMO)

> than women's game vs. men's game.

>

>

>

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The men's Wimbledon final has twice as many

> > viewers; three times some years.

> >

> > But, the women's final being on Saturday

> > lunchtime, when people are more likely to be

> busy

> > might have a small part to play in that.

good point

[Mick Mac]

If women can run marathons, they can play 5 sets. Some of the matches are quick 2 setters and don't deserve/need to go longer - but when its a close encounter it would be good to see the well matched players battle it out for longer - even if its only in the semi and the final. probably not needed in the earlier rounds.

[Loz]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the way to really solve it would be to make all tennis open (same for golf where this argument

> appears quite often) - but how many woman would then be in the top 10 or 100?

Probably zero for tennis. Serena Williams is the most powerful female tennis player ever, and she was cleaned up 6-1 by a relatively unknown male player ranked about 200, though she was only 16 at the time. It would have been interesting to see a similar match up at her peak.

On the other hand, female golfers have cut it in the men's game. But I always thought that rather undermined the women's tour.

It's interesting that some sports where physical strength is no advantage, segregation still takes place. Shooting, darts, lawn bowls, diving spring to mind, I'm sure there are others. (Plus chess, but I call that a game, not a sport). I can only think of equestrian events where men and women compete in a truly open competition.

Of course, there is korfball, dubbed 'the only truly mixed sport' in that a team must comprise 4 men and 4 women, but even there there is a significant degree of segregation within the rules.

[Loz]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes but for the US open, the women's game draws more viewers, particularly when Serena is playing

> than the men's game. The women's final is on a Sunday and the men's is on a Monday.

Only for 2007-2014, and mostly they were due to rain delays. Since 2015, the men's final was moved back to Sunday and the women's to Saturday. Men's viewing figures were much higher for 2015, but the women's final didn't feature Serena - the first time since 2010.

[LondonMix]

Yes, that's true Loz.

I suppose my point is that depending on who is playing and when the game is scheduled, women can attract as much or more of a viewing audience than men.

The entertainment value is largely based on if the individual is a star in the host country. The men's game has a few dominant stars at the moment and the women's game has relatively few compared to previous eras.

To be frank, most of these millionaire athletes make their money via endorsements. I'm not sure why this is so controversial.

[Mick Mac]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

>

> On the other hand, female golfers have cut it in

> the men's game. But I always thought that rather

> undermined the women's tour.

>

They haven't really - it was a bit of a failed experiment and they tended to miss the cut more often than not. Hence they stopped doing it. I think it was a good idea to try it though.

[????]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> It's interesting that some sports where physical

> strength is no advantage, segregation still takes

> place. Shooting, darts, lawn bowls, diving spring

> to mind, I'm sure there are others. (Plus chess,

> but I call that a game, not a sport). I can only

> think of equestrian events where men and women

> compete in a truly open competition.

>

Poker.... a mind-sport :)

[Blah Blah]

But the problem with all these arguments is that women are constantly being compared to men. Perhaps if we stopped doing that, we might see the merit of the sports they play.

I'm pretty sure broadcast companies pay huge megabucks for the rights to televise the womens tennis slam tornaments just as they do the mens, and prizemoney is just a drop in the ocean to the revenues generated by that. And I think that's the point with all sport. If the money coming in can afford X or Y prizemoney, then that's all there is to it. There are plenty of sports that have no huge financial draw for male participants too. That's why we have things like the Olympics. For those few sports people that do make the top, the real money is in the endorsements and sponsorship anyway.

Having said all that, I have no interest in sport anyway!

[Blah Blah]

Found this info on premiership clubs. Pretty much all of them have huge debts, barely make annual profits, yet continue to pay huge salaries. Now that's bonkers.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/29/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

[Grok]

All female versions of male sport are 2nd best. Fact. So, pay for what you get hence less.

[Blah Blah]

You assume that all sports were originally played by men before women. There is no evidence of that. I would assume that in their earliest forms, most sports were played by kids of both genders playing together, and the same may have been true for adults as well. It is only patriarchy that has developed this false history of sport being for men first.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is only patriarchy that has developed this false history of sport being for

> men first.

You do realise that patriarchy is just a (rather simplistic) social theory? It can't actually 'do' anything.

[Blah Blah]

Not sure I agree with that. Men setting rules that exclude women from a whole range of activities is as clear as it gets. History is full of examples.