Should female tennis players have equal prizes?

This is circular logic.

Djokovic caused a SJW/feminist media uproar a few weeks ago by expressing his opinion that men should make more since they bring in so much more money to the tourneys they take part in. He is talking about the tournaments where both male and female players play at the same time and the women are paid as much as men even though the men bring in far more income through sponsors, TV rights, tickets, merchandise etc.

First of all the amount of sets played is irrelevant in the way most people look at it (the relevance come from men's matches having a lot more TV ads because of their length), before anyone gets into that. Tennis is a business and the organizers of tournaments can afford to offer the prizes because they get their money from the sources mentioned earlier. Women are a side show as far as money/public interest is concerned. I remember female Roland Garros semis where the stands where barely half full. The closest thing I can think of is paying an act opening for The Rolling Stones the same because ''mah equality''. Which would be absolutely****ingridiculous.

This is a perfect example of how feminists see ''equality'' : women should be ''equal'' to men simply because they are women, the circumstances are irrelevant. They don't need to ''beat'' men at whatever the ''game'' is, they just deserve it on account of their genitals. I guess it makes sense since feminism is basically gender marxism.

EDIT: People not getting this, IT'S NOT ABOUT TENNIS. It's about the pay gap, it's about quotas in unis, company boards, jobs, election lists and everywhere else where women are getting preferential treatment simply because they are women. It doesn't matter that they would be obliterated if they competed directly against men, everything has to be fluffy and PC. But even mentioning it will make the media blow up with social justice feels and end up in the ''culprit'' apologizing in tears. So much for patriarchy...

It isn't; it is perhaps badly phrased though.

By revenue, I mean stuff like ticket sales, advertising revenue etc.

I see what you mean but I still think it's a kind of circular logic because:

the men's game is better rewarded in prize money
this bring greater esteem and interest to it
more revenu is generated from it as a result

and we are back to believing it deserves higher prize money.

Of course there are other things influencing these decisions however the male game has always been better remunerated, which has effected its development up to how it is seen today (to which this thread is testimony).

Wait, are you saying men are far better than women at tennis because of the money in it? And if money was the issue, just take a look at the WTA site. Tennis is by far the most lucrative sport for women, they make the same money as the men while being far worse at the sport and being incredibly inconsistent : Simona Halep has already earned over $11 million at the age of 24 without ever winning a single GS tourney and only reaching one GS final. And this is just tennis money, as I mentioned before there are more women than men in the top 10 richest tennis players list. The top women would be massacred by guys who can't even get into the male top 1000 but hey this is what equality is all about, ey?

As long as men and women don't play against each other in the same tournaments, they shouldn't be earning the same amount, it should just depend on the individual tournaments and how much money they bring in.

Also, voted "yes" by mistake

Ideally yes, but women wouldn't even get in the top 1000 if they played men, no woman would ever be a pro (tennis is a very tough sport to make a living from, only a few hundred people can make a living from it). And of course, the organizers of women-only tournaments can pay them whatever they want, it's their decision. Btw it's very refreshing to see a woman using logic instead of feelings, sadly it's quite a rare sight especially on here. Are you a maths/science person by any chance?

The men's game is bigger business and they play for longer, so in theory, yes they should earn more.

But I'm not going to waste my energy fighting a millionaire's corner on a financial issue.

The men are better players and also play for longer. So they shouldn't be paid equally.

I know that women wouldn't really be able to compete. Problem is that men's sports tend to be more popular, so by default they will bring more money and let them earn more. My point is basically that if you can't compare different tournaments, their size and popularity will affect the prize poll and it just so happens that unfortunately women are at a disadvantage here. I imagine there must be some sport where women earn more?

Already happened in 1998. The Williams sisters were the best in the world

For a year, they should mix it up (i.e: men and women can play each other), and then when the females start dropping like flies and the men go onto win what most likely will be all the tournaments, then the feminists will finally shut their gobs.

Already happened in 1998. The Williams sisters were the best in the world and confidently said they could beat any man over 200 in rankings. Well they were brought back down to earth by Kaarsten Braach who was ranked 203. He was a chain smoker and binge-drinker and he wasn't even trying when he smashed them 5-1 or 6-0 or whatever it was.

My take on this:

I think that mens tennis players should be earning more at the moment. If female tennis players want to earn the same amount of money, make them play the best of 5 sets - not the best of 3. Or alternatively, make it so that the male tennis players only have to do the best of 3 sets.