Sexual Discrimination

[flip-flop]

Wimbledon is to pay women the same as the men.

Surely this is sexual discrimination against the men, isn't it?

They are getting the same money as the women despite the fact that the men do almost double the work.

[Whickerman]

...and a bigger audience share for tv viewers.

Yes, it's discrimination and a bit nuts.

[Supernick]

Well, one school of thought is that the men do more work than the women and so deserve more, but then if that is the case I see no reason why you can't fully extend that argument and have all of the winnings fully dealt out according to time on court, or number of sets won. Does a man who takes 5 sets to win deserve more than someone who rattles of 3 quick sets? If a woman takes 3 sets to dispose of someone, does that mean she's done the same work as the man who has won in straight sets?

If it's a question of prestige, and viewing figures, then the men's tour is more popular and brings in more money, and so perhaps there is a vaild point with this kind of argument, more so than the previous.

Either way I find it hard to get very worked up about one set of millionaires earning a few more thousand than another set of millionaires.

[vehelpfulguy]

While I agree with you....how about this.

Many athletes now get paid to run at athletic meetings, and nearly always the men run their events faster than the women.

Maybe male athletes should get paid less than the women as they are on the track for less time !

[flip-flop]

Pretty much agree with Supernick's final paragraph - I just felt like stirring it up a bit on a Friday afternoon.

Of all sports, anything to do with horses aside, tennis is just about the most boring spectacle there is.

[Hammer Head]

But vhg, if the male athletes are on the track for a shorter time than women in similar events then surely that means they've worked harder because they've run the same distance in a faster time.

The argument in tennis has always been that the men can in theory play 35 sets of tennis to win a grand slam whereas the women need only win 21. So the men (could)play 66% more tennis.

[flip-flop]

....or if they want equal standing, let them play five sets (christ almighty - how boring would that be?)

Or make them play the men. Then they'd moan because they weren't winning anything.

[ludwig]

I just asked my boss if I could start working a 3 day week but get the same money as I do now for working 5.

He said no.

[Supernick]

So would everyone extend that argument to paying the players entirely on the number of sets they play? So a woman who plays 3 sets earns the same as a man who does. But a man who plays 5 sets earns more than a man who wins in 3?

[ludwig]

No, cos that would be silly and impractical Supernick.
Women play a minimum of 2 maximum of 3.
Men play a minimum of 3 maximum of 5.
Which means most of the time men play more sets than women, which is one of the reasons they got more.

The argument for paying women the same is actually that they put in about the same work at the end of the day because men's tennis is so fast and powerful that there are more aces, and each point only lasts about 3 hits.

Contrast that to the womens game where they actually have proper rallies which last more than about 5 seconds.

I don't know how valid that argument is. It doesn't seem right to me.

[kayakamina]

I don't begrudge the women their money in the later rounds ,say the last 16, but some of the Ladies' matches in the first two rounds last 25 minutes 6-0, 6-0 while the men are slogging out in five sets.

[Oneeyedvic]

To have equal rights, you should only have one competition - but since women would (very rarely if ever) be in the last 32, this is in fact a discriminatory competition.

[Dom Tuk]

coem on Andy Murray....do it for the queen and country........ha ha maybe not

[johnny37]

This is not a sexist argument (I believe in a woman prime minister and women priests) but you have only got to look at the amount of media coverage mens tour tennis gets compared with women to realise that womens tennis is a non-event.. The Chief Exec of Wimbledon was embarrassing the other night trying to justify it. Another point is that women have more time to enter doubles and mixed and so win more money that way. My third point - could tennis be handicapped in some way so that Federer at least gets a game.

[SarCaustic]

Although I'm with Supernick on this one (last paragraph), I actually think that women's tennis is more entertaining.

[Whickerman]

SarCaustic, you might just be right.

The short skirts, the grunting, the sweating, Kournicova and her ilk...

Actually, I'm changing my mind! Pay them more!

[mankymonky]

I am with one eyd, if they want equality then equality it should be and they should play the men.

[THECORBYLOON]

In many tournaments, both men and women play a maximum of three sets (although in some, the men play five in the final.) The argument would be settled if the men played three sets.

[johnny37]

If men and women played each other then obviously women would never win, so that is why they need a separate championship. What I cant understand is why there are separate competitions in darts, bowls and snooker. In yachting and horse riding they compete against each other. The only woman I can think of coming anywhere near the men is Paula Radcliffe but even then she would not come in the top 100.

[anotheoldgit]

Where will all this end, given that the female tennis players are paid the same, will this set a precedence? Will we now see England's Lady footballers paid the same as the Male England squad?
Thinking about it though and to be fair all round, why not pay the present squad the same as the England Ladies?

[Goodsoulette]

I have given up on mens tennis. It's all about who has the biggest serve (mostly). At least in womens tennis you get to see a bit of tennis. I mean how much equipment do these guys need to take onto the court with them. I sat bring back wooden rackets, and then see how they fair?