blonde poker forum

So here we go again.

Following Ray Moores comments that Women ride on the coat tails of the mens game, and Novac agreeing men should be paid more, I just endured the Women on the Breakfast TV, moaning that its totally wrong etc.

Personally, I agree with Djokovic.

If Men are required to play a max of 5 sets, vs the Womens 3 sets, is that not actually unfair that Women expect to be paid pro rata more money?

If Men bring in more paying supporters, ditto?

If Men played Women, they would crush, so surely deserve more?

Thoughts or previous thread?!

I used to agree with Novak but the last 10 years or so I've found myself enjoying the WTA more than the men's game apart from when it is a genuine big gun showdown.

As for the 3 v 5 set debate, I think the men get loads of free points on serve, whereas the women have to work harder for every point and hit more balls in general.  I think it's one of the view sports where the women are genuine box office to as big a degree as the men so I think equal prize money is fair.

If the viewing figures are correct then I think men should be paid more. But watching Isner and Raonic firing down ace after ace when they play on grass is just dull and I wouldn't watch it. Get rid of 5 set matches for men would be a step towards equality.

Oh and fine anyone who grunts when they hit the ball.

I actually wrote my dissertation about the subject of sportswomen's pay - with a focus on women's tennis. Suffice to say my findings that women shouldn't be paid equally to the men didn't go down well with my feminist tutor.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the women to go up to 5 sets rather than the men go down to 3?

The viewing figures are irrelevant - and also at least in part down to how it's marketed - if they both do the same job (5 set matches) then they should get the same pay. If the tournament organisers can't market the woman's game as well, or don't do it as intensively at least, then it's their problem to fix.

If you're a woman, and you want to earn a higher rate of pay for the same work as a man, then your options are model, hooker, porn star or a tennis player for 8 weeks of the year. Everything else, men get paid more than women.

If, as a man, you want to eliminate one of these disparities then I'd suggest there are probably bigger battles you could choose to fight.

I do find it ironic that the top earners at Wimbledon are the women players as they can manage the doubles tournaments as well.

Surely it's not irrelevant?  Viewing figures/ticket sales are what drives revenue?

If pay is a function of cost/benefit analysis - then it's relevant.

But if that were the case then the cost of hiring men and women equally would result in a higher cost for women as they are more likely to take longer off for maternity pay and family 'issues' - i.e. it "should" result in lower pay for women. In practice this may be what happens but it illustrates the point that from an equality point of view it should be about whether men and women are doing the same job - not about how much they cost or how much revenue they make.

To be devils advocate of if ATP and WTA rights get sold seperately they are not doing then same job?  Otherwise you can argue women footballers should be on 300k a week?

A millionaire who spends all his time doing his hobby has complained he isn't rich enough. Novak Djokovic, from Serbia, travels around the world playing tennis with his friends at some of the most glamorous locations. He can earn several million pounds a year playing tennis but is unhappy that girl millionaires get the same amount of money for doing their hobby too. He said: "I play tennis really hard and everybody knows boys are better than girls at sports. Can you believe that when I made £1m for winning Wimbledon the girl who also won got the same?" But Mr Djokovic said he doesn't want the girl tennis players to earn any less. "I want more," he said, "much more."

http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=98458

It's not equality,is it? They effectively want to get paid more than the men. Surely it just comes down to if they play the same amount of sets, they get paid the same amount of money?

I think there should be true equality. Let's amalgamate the genders to allow the women to show why they deserve to be paid equally.

The ATP and WTA are separate entities away from the grand slams. They have different events and in general the ATP players are paid more for playing the same amount (3 sets)as the women, even at dual events like Indian Wells last week the women's final was on bt sport and the men's on sky.

In an hypothetical example how far do you have to go down the men's rankings that you make Serena Williams a favourite in a 3 set match? 100,200, 1000, 5000....??

This is the main thing - I don't see any reason why women can't just go up to 5 sets.

There was an interesting article on the BBC which addressed the revenue/viewers question - it pointed out that in practice it's not the men's game that attracts more viewers - it's specific men. The revenue argument for women earning less should mean that the less famous male tennis players should get a lower prize if they happened to beat a Djokovic or Nadal.

As AndrewT pointed out - it's really not the most important of feminist issues around, but I would have thought that just changing everything to 5 sets would be a pretty simple start.

The ability/length of game is irrelevant, women have other commercial interest. What should have been said is women should know their games appeal, and ditch the ugo's.

I would rather pay to watch women's tennis because I enjoy watching athletic young women running around in skimpy outfits, ergo they should earn more than the men imo.

Is that a valid argument?

The female players, the male players - none of them are pursuing 'equality'.

They are all pursuing as much loot as possible for themselves, using other issues as leverage if it helps their case.

Trying to add to their millions by misusing issues that cause real problems for much poorer people should be condemned.

no

I was going to ask you to expand a little but I've just looked back over your previous posts and the vast majority of them are one word efforts, so I don't suppose there's much chance.

Go on though, surprise me.

I think it's valid.  Aesthetics are part of a product and if that is what drives the sales the it should be relevant (I'm not saying it does, just hypothetically).