Tennis Prize Money

[New Judge]

Following on from Butterbun’s question about the tennis, and my remarks about equal prize money I thought it might be worth examining a few statistics. In Melbourne, even allowing for Andy Murray’s “meltdown” (where he lost 12 of the last 13 games) their match still lasted three hours and forty minutes. Meanwhile the “tightly contested” Ladies’ Final lasted just half as long at 1h51mins.

This phenomenon is not unique. In the Wimbledon finals last year Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer took four minutes short of four hours to settle their differences. Meanwhile Eugenie Bouchard was demolished in just 55 minutes.

I have chosen these two finals because I have the statistics readily to hand. However this discrepancy is by no means unusual and is not limited to the finals. Does anyone really, really, believe the Ladies deserve equal prize money?

[mushroom25]

why do the ladies not contest their matches over 5 sets?

when they do, they'll be entitled to equal prize money.

[douglas9401]

Yes, the ladies.

[MargoTester]

My OH is always on about this and I am inclined to agree. It would be fair if both sexes were playing three set matches but not when the men play five and the women three.

[campbellking]

As I stated in the other thread, I feel the women tennis players let down women athletes of every other sport who have had to campaign hard to compete over the same distances as men (i.e. marathon runners, rowers etc).
If women can compete over the 'ironman' distance in triathlon, why can't tennis players manage to play up to 5 sets?

[brainiac]

As with other areas of life, it should be equal pay for equal work. For a man to win a grand slam singles title he has to play a minimum of 21 sets, but a woman can win by playing only 14 sets. Not fair !

[Butterbun]

Well NJ, they seem to agree with you.

[Butterbun]

Games brainiac, games. Not sets. A man can also win with 18 games, and a woman 12 games if the other competitor does not win any games.

[Tilly2]

I can't play three sets of tennis. I run out of steam. If we play three, I win. If we play five, I always lose. No stamina, you see.

[Tilly2]

games, not sets.

[New Judge]

Pay attention, boys and girls. Brainiac is correct.

To win a Grand Slam TITLE a player has to win seven matches. Minimum 21 sets for the Gentlemen, 14 for the Ladies.

[Butterbun]

Oh, I see.

[ichkeria]

The champion male wins all his matches to become champion
The champion female wins all her matches to become champion.
I don't see that the length of the matches is relevant. These days the female game is at least as competitive as the male

[agchristie]

NJ - I agree where the 'Slams' are concerned but the argument is weakened when referring to the other events in the calendar for the ATP and WTA tournaments.

Would you advocate equal prizemoney in the vast majority of competitions?

[New Judge]

There might just be a case when a both competitions are played to the same number of sets. However, there is more to it than that. The Ladies' game is simply not played to the same pace and with the same intensity. This did not make so much difference some years ago when power was not such a dominant factor in the game. However now few players come to the net where physical strength is less important. Like women's football, Ladies' tennis is simply nowhere near as entertaining.

My question was really principally directed towards Grand Slams where, without a doubt, the Gentlemen get a very raw deal indeed. They provide about two thirds of the entertainment (arguably to a higher quality, though I accept that is subjective) for just half of the prize money. It is extremely unfair. I watch a lot of tennis and still watch the occasional Ladies' match. But I gave up watching women's tennis in earnest a few years ago when the power play began to dominate as, in the main, I found it simply unentertaining.

I am not a misogynist. In fact I am an ardent supporter of women's rights to equal treatment and abhor anything that discriminates against them (as some of my posts on other topics will attest). But equality has to work in both directions and in the case of Grand Slam tennis it simply does not.

Thanks for your contributions. I’ve awarded cambellking the “Best Answer” as I feel that his idea that the Ladies should simply “man up” and play five sets would take most of the sting from my argument. Why Billie-Jean and her sisters did not insist on this is hard to fathom (but then again, maybe it’s not!).

[Hymie]

New Judge has stated ‘Pay attention, boys and girls. Brainiac is correct.’ whereas he is wrong - douglas9401 is correct.

[campbellking]

Campbellking is not male!

[1ozzy]

Good point Campbellking.

Your gender is actually "not set".

[ichkeria]

In the days when ladies' tournaments had fewer rounds and there was an obvious gulf between the top females and the rest ( a bit like there has been to an extent in the men's game in recent years) then there might have been a case for it.
However arguing that the women's prize should be less is effectively saying that you don't think being the champion female player is worth as much as being the champion male player. Plainly that is what you do think but most of the rest of the world has moved on from that

[campbellking]

Surely the basis of equal pay is equal work. The women tennis players are effectively working shorter shifts in grand slams, so why should they get paid the same amount of money?
I've run a few marathons, I've never wanted a few miles chopped off the end of it because I'm female (not that I'm ever going to bother the prize givers).

[1ozzy]

You have summed it up perfectly Campbellking.
Equality equals exactly that.
The same hard yards equals the same rewards.
Equal effort = equal reward.
Hopefully tennis will one day recognise that and change their structure to allow ladies to earn the big bucks, or pounds ;-)