Crosswords1 min ago
Ladies Final.
So one sided, not even a match and lasted less than an hour.
Congratulations to Halep but how can these women command the same salary as men?
Congratulations to Halep but how can these women command the same salary as men?
Answers
Stand by for NJ's now customary annual rant :-) //Anyway, opinion polls say that Womens tennis is FAR more popular with TV viewers than 'Mens' .// Need some evidence, Eddie. In any case, the easiest way to deal with that is to stage the two events at different times. Then see how many bums on seats you get for each and how much the TV companies are willing to shell...
16:54 Sat 13th Jul 2019
I am all for equal pay for men and women, but it should be equal pay for equal work. You can't have it both ways, and say 'oh we're only women and we can only manage to play a maximum of 3 sets', but then ask for the same money as men playing best of 5.
The minimum number of sets a man has to play to win Wimbledon (or any other Grand Slam) is 21; a woman can win only playing 14 sets. The final today lasted an hour - what a let-down.
Equal pay for equal work!
The minimum number of sets a man has to play to win Wimbledon (or any other Grand Slam) is 21; a woman can win only playing 14 sets. The final today lasted an hour - what a let-down.
Equal pay for equal work!
Stand by for NJ's now customary annual rant :-)
//Anyway, opinion polls say that Womens tennis is FAR more popular with TV viewers than 'Mens' .//
Need some evidence, Eddie. In any case, the easiest way to deal with that is to stage the two events at different times. Then see how many bums on seats you get for each and how much the TV companies are willing to shell out.
I have been an avid follower of tennis virtually all my life but I rarely watch a women’s game. Apart from the 3/5/ sets discrepancy there is simply no comparison between the quality of the two games. I’ve heard the argument that the ladies train just as hard and put in just as much effort and I’m sure that’s true. But as an end result the spectacle bears no comparison. I could train as hard as I could and put in as much effort as I could but my game would not be worth watching so it’s a specious argument.
//The number of sets argument is patently nonsense!//
No it isn’t. I have detailed stats going back to 2001 for the entire Wimbledon tournament. In that year the Ladies achieved 33% of the court time and received 46% of the prize money. Rarely do they exceed 40% of the court time overall and the figures for sets and games played are usually similar percentages. Yes, you do get some relatively short men’s matches as you do ladies’ matched but the shortest men’s match must comprise at least 18 games, 50% more than the shortest ladies’ match. But looking at extremes does not provide useful data otherwise you would have to give considerable weight to the John Isner Nicolas Mahut match of 2010 which extended to 183 games, finishing 70-68 in the final set and which took over eight hours to complete. Overall figures are far more useful for such a comparison.
I’ve watched two or three Ladies’ matches this year (including the second set of today’s final) and my opinion is still the same – they are overpaid. Unequal pay would not break equality laws because, quite simply, they are not working as long as the men. In fact they have been overpaid since 1974 when they first secured more than 40% of the prize money. Their figure remained at between 47% and 48% from 1977 until 2007 when they were paid equally.
I am no dinosaur. I support women’s equality more than most. But what is demonstrated at Wimbledon (and other tournaments) is inequality. The men are underpaid and that situation is sanctioned by the ATP because they don’t want to be seen as “off message”.
//Anyway, opinion polls say that Womens tennis is FAR more popular with TV viewers than 'Mens' .//
Need some evidence, Eddie. In any case, the easiest way to deal with that is to stage the two events at different times. Then see how many bums on seats you get for each and how much the TV companies are willing to shell out.
I have been an avid follower of tennis virtually all my life but I rarely watch a women’s game. Apart from the 3/5/ sets discrepancy there is simply no comparison between the quality of the two games. I’ve heard the argument that the ladies train just as hard and put in just as much effort and I’m sure that’s true. But as an end result the spectacle bears no comparison. I could train as hard as I could and put in as much effort as I could but my game would not be worth watching so it’s a specious argument.
//The number of sets argument is patently nonsense!//
No it isn’t. I have detailed stats going back to 2001 for the entire Wimbledon tournament. In that year the Ladies achieved 33% of the court time and received 46% of the prize money. Rarely do they exceed 40% of the court time overall and the figures for sets and games played are usually similar percentages. Yes, you do get some relatively short men’s matches as you do ladies’ matched but the shortest men’s match must comprise at least 18 games, 50% more than the shortest ladies’ match. But looking at extremes does not provide useful data otherwise you would have to give considerable weight to the John Isner Nicolas Mahut match of 2010 which extended to 183 games, finishing 70-68 in the final set and which took over eight hours to complete. Overall figures are far more useful for such a comparison.
I’ve watched two or three Ladies’ matches this year (including the second set of today’s final) and my opinion is still the same – they are overpaid. Unequal pay would not break equality laws because, quite simply, they are not working as long as the men. In fact they have been overpaid since 1974 when they first secured more than 40% of the prize money. Their figure remained at between 47% and 48% from 1977 until 2007 when they were paid equally.
I am no dinosaur. I support women’s equality more than most. But what is demonstrated at Wimbledon (and other tournaments) is inequality. The men are underpaid and that situation is sanctioned by the ATP because they don’t want to be seen as “off message”.
I think a possible solution, which I heard put forward by Martina Navratilova, would be for men and women in Grand Slams (and other tournaments possibly) to play best-of-three sets until the quarters, semis and final, when it would be best-of-five for men and women.
Then they should be paid the same, as they're doing the same 'work'.
Then they should be paid the same, as they're doing the same 'work'.
If its equal pay then let there be one draw which contains the names of all the women and all the men and let them fight it out until there is one grand champion. Soon get rid of all those squealing women. Having said that more of the men seem to be grunting this year. Thank goodness Nadal is out. His grunts were getting more and more annoying as the match went on.
Women's tennis is far more popular than the men's game in the US (just as is football aka soccer). In the UK (and therefore Wimbledon) the popularity of the men's matches far outstrips the women's.
Women's Grand Slam matches are so less rigorous than the men's that it is not uncommon for the Singles Champion to also win or progress deeply in either of the Doubles Championships.
Top male Singles players have no energy to also enter Doubles competition. It took invalidity for Andy Murray to venture in that direction.
Serena Williams had higher winnings than the male Wimbledon champion in 2012 and 2009 (as did Venus in 2008) because they won Singles and Doubles. The last male joint winner at Wimbledon was McEnroe in 1984.
Women's Grand Slam matches are so less rigorous than the men's that it is not uncommon for the Singles Champion to also win or progress deeply in either of the Doubles Championships.
Top male Singles players have no energy to also enter Doubles competition. It took invalidity for Andy Murray to venture in that direction.
Serena Williams had higher winnings than the male Wimbledon champion in 2012 and 2009 (as did Venus in 2008) because they won Singles and Doubles. The last male joint winner at Wimbledon was McEnroe in 1984.
goodgoalie -- I simply don't see the two situations as equivalent. Prize money has never been based on time spent on court, but on number of matches won and/or stage of competition reached.
Theoretically, although exceptionally, it's possible for the winner to spend exactly zero hours on court because their opponents keep retiring with injury before the match starts. In that situation, the lucky beneficiary would no doubt be super-embarrassed to claim their prize money, but they would have "earned" just as much as someone who had needed to turn up to win a match -- and even if you don't extend it all the way to the final, the fact remains that walkover victories still lead to the prize money being awarded for reaching the next stage.
It's a patent nonsense, in other words, to insist that men must perforce get more than women simply by virtue of an average longer match length, regardless of actual circumstances. Or, put another way, I would be OK with the idea of linking money earned to time spent on court, as long as it's applied to every player at a rate that remains equal per hour (or per game/set) for men and women. And once that happens then you anyway would be faced with the situation of players deliberately seeking to draw out matches for longer in order to maximise their possible take.
Theoretically, although exceptionally, it's possible for the winner to spend exactly zero hours on court because their opponents keep retiring with injury before the match starts. In that situation, the lucky beneficiary would no doubt be super-embarrassed to claim their prize money, but they would have "earned" just as much as someone who had needed to turn up to win a match -- and even if you don't extend it all the way to the final, the fact remains that walkover victories still lead to the prize money being awarded for reaching the next stage.
It's a patent nonsense, in other words, to insist that men must perforce get more than women simply by virtue of an average longer match length, regardless of actual circumstances. Or, put another way, I would be OK with the idea of linking money earned to time spent on court, as long as it's applied to every player at a rate that remains equal per hour (or per game/set) for men and women. And once that happens then you anyway would be faced with the situation of players deliberately seeking to draw out matches for longer in order to maximise their possible take.
