Body & Soul0 min ago
Should Women Get Equal Pay In Tennis?
Novak Djokovic says male tennis players should earn more money than their female counterparts because more people watch them play.
http://
He explains that male players should follow in the footsteps of the female players who “fought for what they deserve” when equal prize money was awarded, although the 28-year-old says that men “should fight for more”.
But then he said that he has 'tremendous respect for what women in global sport are doing and achieving, because of "the hormones and different stuff, we don't need to go into details."
So...bravo women managing to be sporting heroes despite having periods, but we blokes should be paid more.
Your thoughts?
http://
He explains that male players should follow in the footsteps of the female players who “fought for what they deserve” when equal prize money was awarded, although the 28-year-old says that men “should fight for more”.
But then he said that he has 'tremendous respect for what women in global sport are doing and achieving, because of "the hormones and different stuff, we don't need to go into details."
So...bravo women managing to be sporting heroes despite having periods, but we blokes should be paid more.
Your thoughts?
Answers
I would say, strictly speaking, the fickle nature of all TV viewers. The US figures are just the only ones I could find instantly. I expect it's possible to find estimates for global audience figures for various matches, and a similar pattern will be seen, viz. a massive variation in viewing figures that can't be attached to whether it's men or women playing,...
15:01 Tue 22nd Mar 2016
Women are playing women, men are playing men. (Some women could probably beat some men!) So far equal. Women train as hard as men. Equal again.
There is a possible case in that women play 3 sets as against 5 for men, but women are built differently. I'm not an expert on tennis, but would think that, like athletics (Heptathlon vs. Decathlon) the gender difference is accounted for. It's the same sort of effort.
I go along with women's tennis being less power-play and more subtle than men's, but you just need to watch it differently. Possibly the fault lies with the audience, which likes to see men knocking 7 bells out of each other.
No, men shouldn't be paid more, because that implies women's tennis is a lesser sport - and it isn't. Ditto Women's Rugby (currently World Champions, but who knows that?).
There is a possible case in that women play 3 sets as against 5 for men, but women are built differently. I'm not an expert on tennis, but would think that, like athletics (Heptathlon vs. Decathlon) the gender difference is accounted for. It's the same sort of effort.
I go along with women's tennis being less power-play and more subtle than men's, but you just need to watch it differently. Possibly the fault lies with the audience, which likes to see men knocking 7 bells out of each other.
No, men shouldn't be paid more, because that implies women's tennis is a lesser sport - and it isn't. Ditto Women's Rugby (currently World Champions, but who knows that?).
Professional sportsmen/women are basically entertainers. Garth Brooks and Elton John, for example, get paid far more than the vast majority of other entertainers because
(a) they can command higher ticket prices ; and
(b) they can fill larger venues.
If women tennis players are playing in front of the same size crowds as the men, where the spectators have paid the same prices as they would to see men play and (importantly) where TV companies have paid just as much to broadcast the match as they would have done for male players, then it's fair and reasonable that they should be paid exactly the same as the men.
However if the crowds are smaller, or the ticket prices are lower, for the women's game (because people aren't as interested in watching them as they are the men) or if TV companies pay less (because they know that they'll have fewer viewers, meaning that they can't charge advertisers as much), then it's clearly preposterous that women should get paid as much as the men. (That would be like top women footballers demanding the same pay as male Premier League stars, even though there's not the same income, from ticket sales and TV rights, to fund such salaries).
So perhaps there's the need for some research into just how popular (or unpopular) the women's game really is. There's certainly a perception in the media that the men's game is far more popular and newsworthy (with the Men's Final at Wimbledon always getting far more coverage than the Women's) but perhaps that's not really the case?
(a) they can command higher ticket prices ; and
(b) they can fill larger venues.
If women tennis players are playing in front of the same size crowds as the men, where the spectators have paid the same prices as they would to see men play and (importantly) where TV companies have paid just as much to broadcast the match as they would have done for male players, then it's fair and reasonable that they should be paid exactly the same as the men.
However if the crowds are smaller, or the ticket prices are lower, for the women's game (because people aren't as interested in watching them as they are the men) or if TV companies pay less (because they know that they'll have fewer viewers, meaning that they can't charge advertisers as much), then it's clearly preposterous that women should get paid as much as the men. (That would be like top women footballers demanding the same pay as male Premier League stars, even though there's not the same income, from ticket sales and TV rights, to fund such salaries).
So perhaps there's the need for some research into just how popular (or unpopular) the women's game really is. There's certainly a perception in the media that the men's game is far more popular and newsworthy (with the Men's Final at Wimbledon always getting far more coverage than the Women's) but perhaps that's not really the case?
-- answer removed --
The problem with that argument about entertainment is that not all men's matches are equally entertaining either. There is a limit to how fine you can grade things; may just as well assume that all matches are equally entertaining, but matches later in the tournament are more entertaining than earlier ones, ie pay scales depending on progress in the tournament only.
Three v. five-set matches is a red herring -- the only way that would make sense is if you linked money received to time on the court, rather than games played. But then that would presumably incentivise people in the leader to "throw" a few games in order to drag out the time on court and so increase the money earned.
Three v. five-set matches is a red herring -- the only way that would make sense is if you linked money received to time on the court, rather than games played. But then that would presumably incentivise people in the leader to "throw" a few games in order to drag out the time on court and so increase the money earned.
Tennis Tournaments such as Wimbledon are a package. Hundreds of matches, male, female, mixed matches. Attendance and TV rights are sold for the whole event, not just the mens final. Prize money comes from the total of tickets sold and viewers over the fortnight not just one match. So the money should be divided up evenly between the males and females.
If Djokovic and Federer think they can make more money not entering sports competitions, but instead stage exhibition matches against each, in Cities all over the world, then they are welcome to go and do that.
If Djokovic and Federer think they can make more money not entering sports competitions, but instead stage exhibition matches against each, in Cities all over the world, then they are welcome to go and do that.
-- answer removed --
Right now, there are 68 Tournaments on the men's annual calendar. Of these, all but the Grand Slams, Davis Cup (live rubbers) and the Olympic final are best-of-three matches. Incidentally, the remaining tournaments are divided into three levels, but even these levels have some gradation of prize money between them despite being nominally the same standard of tournament. As an example, a couple of weeks ago the men were playing tournaments in Mexico and Dubai, both of which were at the "500" level (based on ranking points given to the winner). Stan Wawrinka won in Dubai and got a shade over $510,000 dollars. Dominic Thiem (one to watch for the future, incidentally) won in Mexico and got less than $350,000.
In both cases there was a parallel women's tournament, although the one in Mexico was a lower-level tournament so can't really be used to compare. The winner of the women's tournament got less than Wawrinka did (although the runner-up and semi-finalists got more than their male counterparts); although again this is possibly not a totally fair comparison as the women's tournament is possibly best seen as a slightly lower tier again.
Because it's better to regard the winnings as prize money rather than pay, I don't think that pay considerations -- time spent on court, number of sets played, etc -- should come into it. Even ticket sales per match are a bit tricky things, as sometimes the ticket deals will be for a day's play or for two matches, or some such, and then of course a Djokovic v. Federer final is going to draw more interest in general than a Nishikori v. Cilic one.
In both cases there was a parallel women's tournament, although the one in Mexico was a lower-level tournament so can't really be used to compare. The winner of the women's tournament got less than Wawrinka did (although the runner-up and semi-finalists got more than their male counterparts); although again this is possibly not a totally fair comparison as the women's tournament is possibly best seen as a slightly lower tier again.
Because it's better to regard the winnings as prize money rather than pay, I don't think that pay considerations -- time spent on court, number of sets played, etc -- should come into it. Even ticket sales per match are a bit tricky things, as sometimes the ticket deals will be for a day's play or for two matches, or some such, and then of course a Djokovic v. Federer final is going to draw more interest in general than a Nishikori v. Cilic one.
Exactly divebuddy,
If there were two separate Wimbledon events, one for males and one for females, then the prize money could be different. But you cannot discriminate on earning power in the SAME event. You could not pay Leicester City less than Manchester United for winning the league, because one had more fans who paid more to watch the matches.
If there were two separate Wimbledon events, one for males and one for females, then the prize money could be different. But you cannot discriminate on earning power in the SAME event. You could not pay Leicester City less than Manchester United for winning the league, because one had more fans who paid more to watch the matches.
-- answer removed --
DTCrossword,
Liecester City's attendance is a quarter of Manchester United's. And there gate money probably a tenth. You think Leicester City should be paid less prize money because they are less of a draw?
As long as Wimbledon is a package of male, female and mixed games, then the money raised from the whole tournament should be divided equally.
Liecester City's attendance is a quarter of Manchester United's. And there gate money probably a tenth. You think Leicester City should be paid less prize money because they are less of a draw?
As long as Wimbledon is a package of male, female and mixed games, then the money raised from the whole tournament should be divided equally.
Where the same number of matches are played and the same number of sets on average per match then the prize money should be identical. Where one gender plays more matches or a larger number of set per match on average than the other then there should be a difference in prize money on a pro rata rate according to the average number of sets the winning player can expect to play during the tournament. Anything else is gender discrimination.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.