News1 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
Equality... Wimbledon was the last Major to offer equal prize money in 2007,
however;
Women allowed 10 minute heat breaks - men not.
Women play around 2/3 of that required by men.
This reduction in required effort allows female top seeds to enter Doubles competitions and increase their pay packet further.
Singles & Doubles Champion in same year:
2012 Serena Williams
2009 Serena Williams
2008 Venus Williams
...(and before equal prizes)
2002 Serena Williams
2000 Venus Williams
1999 Lindsay Davenport
1998 Jana Novotná
etc. etc.
1984 John McEnroe (the last male multi-prize winner)
however;
Women allowed 10 minute heat breaks - men not.
Women play around 2/3 of that required by men.
This reduction in required effort allows female top seeds to enter Doubles competitions and increase their pay packet further.
Singles & Doubles Champion in same year:
2012 Serena Williams
2009 Serena Williams
2008 Venus Williams
...(and before equal prizes)
2002 Serena Williams
2000 Venus Williams
1999 Lindsay Davenport
1998 Jana Novotná
etc. etc.
1984 John McEnroe (the last male multi-prize winner)
By any rational analysis the men are being short changed.
Just considering Wimbledon for the moment (for which I have detailed figures going back about ten years, the men never occupy the court for less than 60% of the total time, they play between 60%-65% of the games and sets. In 2015 the men’s final lasted more than twice as long as the women’s; in 2014 it lasted more than four times as long (236 minutes and 55 minutes). The first set alone of that match (Djokovic vs Federer) lasted 51 minutes.
However, leaving aside the numbers, despite their best efforts there is no doubt that women’s tennis is an inferior product. There is the matter of three and five sets but it’s not only that. The game is less intense and less entertaining. Yes I know the women put in 100% effort and train just as hard, but their efforts do not produce an equal product.
Gromit’s football analogy is not appropriate. Manchester United and Leicester City compete against each other in the same competition. Men and women tennis players do not. A more appropriate analogy would be a Formula One motor racing meeting. At those gatherings there are various support races (GP2, Porsche Cup, etc.). The drivers in those events do not demand equal pay to the F1 Competitors (and would be told where to go if they did). They know that their event is a side-show to the F1 race. They just happen to be racing on the same track at the same weekend. They appreciate the opportunity because they know that if they held their own stand alone meeting it would be unlikely to be televised and the spectator numbers would be just a fraction.
If the tournaments are sold as a package I would suggest that if the men were not present the package would be unlikely to be sold for anything like the sums they do go for; if the ladies were absent it would scarcely have any affect. To return to my motor racing analogy, could you imagine Sky paying the huge sums they do to broadcast motor racing if the highlight race was GP2? Of course not. All credit to the Ladies for securing equal prize money. But the men are subsidising their prize money. Of course some ladies’ matches are more spectacular than some men’s (just as some GP2 races are more spectacular than some F1 races). But overall they are not.
Women receive equal pay because they appear at the same tournaments as men. Their appearance there, however, does not justify their prize money. If they appeared on their own the events would not support such huge amounts of cash (whereas the men’s events would).There is a simple way to make matters a little fairer. The ladies should simply take part in separate tournaments. Hold a ladies’ Wimbledon and a Men’s Wimbledon a week or two apart. See what the TV companies will pay, see how many bums on seats each attracts and pay the prize money accordingly. Then we could see whether or not the ladies are riding on the men’s coat tails.
Just considering Wimbledon for the moment (for which I have detailed figures going back about ten years, the men never occupy the court for less than 60% of the total time, they play between 60%-65% of the games and sets. In 2015 the men’s final lasted more than twice as long as the women’s; in 2014 it lasted more than four times as long (236 minutes and 55 minutes). The first set alone of that match (Djokovic vs Federer) lasted 51 minutes.
However, leaving aside the numbers, despite their best efforts there is no doubt that women’s tennis is an inferior product. There is the matter of three and five sets but it’s not only that. The game is less intense and less entertaining. Yes I know the women put in 100% effort and train just as hard, but their efforts do not produce an equal product.
Gromit’s football analogy is not appropriate. Manchester United and Leicester City compete against each other in the same competition. Men and women tennis players do not. A more appropriate analogy would be a Formula One motor racing meeting. At those gatherings there are various support races (GP2, Porsche Cup, etc.). The drivers in those events do not demand equal pay to the F1 Competitors (and would be told where to go if they did). They know that their event is a side-show to the F1 race. They just happen to be racing on the same track at the same weekend. They appreciate the opportunity because they know that if they held their own stand alone meeting it would be unlikely to be televised and the spectator numbers would be just a fraction.
If the tournaments are sold as a package I would suggest that if the men were not present the package would be unlikely to be sold for anything like the sums they do go for; if the ladies were absent it would scarcely have any affect. To return to my motor racing analogy, could you imagine Sky paying the huge sums they do to broadcast motor racing if the highlight race was GP2? Of course not. All credit to the Ladies for securing equal prize money. But the men are subsidising their prize money. Of course some ladies’ matches are more spectacular than some men’s (just as some GP2 races are more spectacular than some F1 races). But overall they are not.
Women receive equal pay because they appear at the same tournaments as men. Their appearance there, however, does not justify their prize money. If they appeared on their own the events would not support such huge amounts of cash (whereas the men’s events would).There is a simple way to make matters a little fairer. The ladies should simply take part in separate tournaments. Hold a ladies’ Wimbledon and a Men’s Wimbledon a week or two apart. See what the TV companies will pay, see how many bums on seats each attracts and pay the prize money accordingly. Then we could see whether or not the ladies are riding on the men’s coat tails.
Just as a matter of interest, and i don't think it has been mentioned yet, last years women's final was watched by a peak audience of 4.3m. The men's final more than doubled those figures with a peak audience of 9.2m. All of which suggests that the men's events are far more popular - and therefore more marketable - than the women's events.
Depends on the men playing, though, right?
In 2014 the men's final of the US Open, contested between Cilic and Nishikori, drew 2.2. million viewers in the US. The year after (Djokovic v. Federer) it was 3.2 million. The year before (Djokovic v. Nadal) it was 3.4 million.
Oh, and the audience figures for the women's finals in those years?
2013: 6.2 million (S. Williams v. Azarenka)
2014: 4.7 million (S. Williams v. C Wozniacki)
2015: 1.6 million (Pennetta v. Vinci)
Figures are skewed a bit as Williams is a US national, but then that's probably the other point. Audiences often vary as much based on the nationality of the players as they do on their gender. So perhaps Serena Williams should be earning twice as much as Djokovic or Federer? IN US tournaments, at least.
In 2014 the men's final of the US Open, contested between Cilic and Nishikori, drew 2.2. million viewers in the US. The year after (Djokovic v. Federer) it was 3.2 million. The year before (Djokovic v. Nadal) it was 3.4 million.
Oh, and the audience figures for the women's finals in those years?
2013: 6.2 million (S. Williams v. Azarenka)
2014: 4.7 million (S. Williams v. C Wozniacki)
2015: 1.6 million (Pennetta v. Vinci)
Figures are skewed a bit as Williams is a US national, but then that's probably the other point. Audiences often vary as much based on the nationality of the players as they do on their gender. So perhaps Serena Williams should be earning twice as much as Djokovic or Federer? IN US tournaments, at least.
Very good point ken.
As I said, however you cut it or examine it (be it objectively with numbers of subjectively with "entertainment value") there is no doubt in my mind that the ladies are receiving the prize money they get because they appear at joint tournaments. The ladies' games simply would not sustain the same prize money as the men's.
As I said, however you cut it or examine it (be it objectively with numbers of subjectively with "entertainment value") there is no doubt in my mind that the ladies are receiving the prize money they get because they appear at joint tournaments. The ladies' games simply would not sustain the same prize money as the men's.
Whilst i see the point you're trying to make, jim360 @ 14;06, what your stats mainly prove, imho, is the fickle nature of the American viewers. If one of theirs is not involved, then they are not interested. Here are some more stats that are food for thought;
Last year, Novak Djokovic won 3 grand slams and won approx £6.5m; he played 96 sets (= £68,000 per set) and was on court for 4,000 mins, earning an estimated £1,600 per minute.
Last year, Venus Williams won 3 grand slams and won approx £5.5m; she played 65 sets (= £84,000 per set) and earned approximately £2,200 per minute.
Last year, Novak Djokovic won 3 grand slams and won approx £6.5m; he played 96 sets (= £68,000 per set) and was on court for 4,000 mins, earning an estimated £1,600 per minute.
Last year, Venus Williams won 3 grand slams and won approx £5.5m; she played 65 sets (= £84,000 per set) and earned approximately £2,200 per minute.
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, or at least not solely. The UK audience for the 2013 Wimbledon final hit something like 17 million or so -- and then 10 million next year, when Andy Murray wasn't in it; and 9 million the year after that, when he wasn't playing either.
Big names attract big audiences. But then of course the reason these players are big names is because they win the big tournaments in the first place, which in turn means they are already winning more prize money.
While I can see the argument Djokovic is making, and that others here in this thread support, the fact is that to say men's matches get bigger audiences than women's matches is a generalisation that doesn't hold true in all cases. If we are going to link prize money to ticket sales directly at all, it should at least be based on far more specific factors than just the gender of the player. I don't see how that's realistic. Because this is, after all, a tournament prize and not actually work-related pay.
I do think there's a separate case for encouraging more five-set tennis in women's matches, but that's because it would be more entertaining (in some cases at least*), rather than on equality grounds.
*but then not all men's matches are equally entertaining either just by virtue of being longer; quite a few matches are one-sided affairs, or close but not particularly high-quality.
Big names attract big audiences. But then of course the reason these players are big names is because they win the big tournaments in the first place, which in turn means they are already winning more prize money.
While I can see the argument Djokovic is making, and that others here in this thread support, the fact is that to say men's matches get bigger audiences than women's matches is a generalisation that doesn't hold true in all cases. If we are going to link prize money to ticket sales directly at all, it should at least be based on far more specific factors than just the gender of the player. I don't see how that's realistic. Because this is, after all, a tournament prize and not actually work-related pay.
I do think there's a separate case for encouraging more five-set tennis in women's matches, but that's because it would be more entertaining (in some cases at least*), rather than on equality grounds.
*but then not all men's matches are equally entertaining either just by virtue of being longer; quite a few matches are one-sided affairs, or close but not particularly high-quality.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Home & Garden5 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
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.