The Student Room Group

Should female tennis players have equal prizes?

Scroll to see replies

why should they they play less sets than men so why should they get the same pay when they start playing the same game time as men then they can have it equal
I thought the campaign slogan was equal pay for equal work? Has it changed to equal pay for less work?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Comedy_Gold

If you had separate Grand Slams for men and women the crowds would be vastly lower at the women's tournament. The men are the big draw in tennis and so should be paid more.

If there is a market where the women are in more demand than the men then the women should be paid more.


I agree with the logic, but it's hard to quantitatively disentangle the draw of men and women's matches in slams because they're run together. Even crowds numbers and viewing figures aren't perfect because spectators might watch a men's match than a women's on the same court on the same day.

This was debated a while back and I did a back of the envelope calculation for the separate male and female tournaments on the tour. Women prize money was something like 30% of men's.

Tennis is a real anomaly in that woman can earn similar amounts to men. The only comparable sport I can think of is mixed martial arts.
Reply 83
Original post by chazwomaq
I agree with the logic, but it's hard to quantitatively disentangle the draw of men and women's matches in slams because they're run together. Even crowds numbers and viewing figures aren't perfect because spectators might watch a men's match than a women's on the same court on the same day.

This was debated a while back and I did a back of the envelope calculation for the separate male and female tournaments on the tour. Women prize money was something like 30% of men's.

Tennis is a real anomaly in that woman can earn similar amounts to men. The only comparable sport I can think of is mixed martial arts.


They could organize them at different times or charge separately for TV rights, sponsoring, tickets, etc. The women's competition would bring in far less money. Basketball in the US works in a similar way, the WNBA loses millions every year and can only exist because the NBA is bankrolling it. It wouldn't be so bad with tennis (since it's watched for various reasons : middle-class pastime, russian eye candy, national support etc) but their intake would see a huge drop.
I don't think it's for anyone other than the organisers of the tournament to comment on what the prize money for men or women ought to be. Their job is simply to offer enough prize money such that it attracts the quality of player and the quality of tennis that they're looking for. They seem to be fine with it currently, so it's all good.

If male tennis players think they're not getting paid enough based on the revenues they bring in, they can always just decide not to play in that tournament. The risk of that would put pressure on the tournament organisers to increase their prize money. But currently it's not thought of as such a significant risk.
Reply 85
Original post by tazarooni89
I don't think it's for anyone other than the organisers of the tournament to comment on what the prize money for men or women ought to be. Their job is simply to offer enough prize money such that it attracts the quality of player and the quality of tennis that they're looking for. They seem to be fine with it currently, so it's all good.

If male tennis players think they're not getting paid enough based on the revenues they bring in, they can always just decide not to play in that tournament. The risk of that would put pressure on the tournament organisers to increase their prize money. But currently it's not thought of as such a significant risk.


The problem with that is that we don't live in a perfect free market, libertarian vacuum. To quote myself from an earlier reply:

Barely anyone in the media has agreed with Djokovic ,instead he was shamed and called every name in the book again and again until eventually he was forced to apologize. As it happens with anyone who dares express an opinion that contradicts the marxists' ideology and their definition of social justice. Not even other male tennis players stood by him. They would have too much to lose if they did, their image and ''bankability'' would drop. Same with the organizers, they can't afford to take on feminists and SJW's so they cave in to the pressure.
So no, men (especially the straight, white, tennis playing ''oppressors'' ) really aren't capable of representing their own interest in a world where PC and SJW are judge, jury and executioner. And we're supposed to be living in a patriarchy....
Original post by TheNote
men will not attend tournaments that do not pay enough.


Demonstrably false - and most tournaments have had equal prize money since they went professional in the 1960s.

Which also, again, doesn't answer the question of why "those who bring in more sponsorship/crowds should get more prize money" is a valid argument for men and women collectively, but not for individual players.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89

If male tennis players think they're not getting paid enough based on the revenues they bring in, they can always just decide not to play in that tournament. The risk of that would put pressure on the tournament organisers to increase their prize money. But currently it's not thought of as such a significant risk.


It would be a major risk for the players - it would damage their reputation (I doubt the average person will look with great sympathy on multi-millionaire top tennis players striking for higher pay) and, if they miss big tournaments, they'll see their ranking nosedive.

Bear in mind that this is also only really a principle that the top players would want to fight for - the lesser male players know they also generally bring in less than they get back in prize money.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 88
Original post by anarchism101
Demonstrably false


prove it.
Original post by Erebor
The problem with that is that we don't live in a perfect free market, libertarian vacuum. To quote myself from an earlier reply:


I don't really see why that highlights a problem with what I said. My point is that it's not for any of us to be deciding what prize money should be given to tennis players, any more than it's up to anyone else to decide how much I pay my gardener.

The tournament organisers just pay as they see fit, balancing all factors involved (including those you mentioned).
Original post by anarchism101
It would be a major risk for the players - it would damage their reputation (I doubt the average person will look with great sympathy on multi-millionaire top tennis players striking for higher pay) and, if they miss big tournaments, they'll see their ranking nosedive.


So then why "should" the tournament organisers increase the pay of top male players, if they're only likely to annoy the female players, feminists etc. as a result, and not gain anything extra from the male players, who are going to be staying in the tournament and playing to the best of their ability regardless?

How does it benefit them to change anything?
I think it would be ridiculous to pay female players the same as male players when a) they play less sets, and b) they bring in less audience members and hence money.
anybody who thinks women should be paid the same amount of money as men in tennis cannot understand how the principle of merit works - merit is regardless of gender
Reply 92
Original post by tazarooni89
I don't really see why that highlights a problem with what I said. My point is that it's not for any of us to be deciding what prize money should be given to tennis players, any more than it's up to anyone else to decide how much I pay my gardener.

The tournament organisers just pay as they see fit, balancing all factors involved (including those you mentioned).


What if social justice warriors and the marxist media called you a racist, misogynist, white male oppressor and that would affect your job position, social status or business relations? You'd end up paying whatever they blackmail you into paying, whether you like it or not... or suffer the consequences. We don't live in a libertarian vacuum, we live in a marxist, PC, guilt and shame society. The market decides what you pay your gardener, it's not the same for tennis.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Erebor
What if social justice warriors and the marxist media called you a racist, misogynist, white male oppressor and that would affect your job position, social status or business relations? You'd end up paying whatever they blackmail you into paying, whether you like it or not... or suffer the consequences. We don't live in a libertarian vacuum, we live in a marxist, PC, guilt and shame society. The market decides what you pay your gardener, it's not the same for tennis.


But then that's exactly what I'm saying. If the organisers of tennis tournaments pay women less, they'll have all these people to answer to, potentially damage their reputations etc. Whereas if they continue as they are, they're not losing anything in terms of male participants. So why "should" they change anything? What do they stand to gain from it?

My point is that the amount that they "should" pay male and female players depends on whatever suits them, all consequences considered. It's not about whether or not you and I consider it fair or morally right. The fundamental reason why such tournaments exist in the first place is to benefit the organisers in terms of making them a profit. So it's purely up to the organisers to ask themselves "At the end of the day, under which set of circumstances are we better off?"
(edited 7 years ago)
no, because then roger federer would identify himself as a woman and enter female tennis competition for easy prize money lol
Original post by tazarooni89
So then why "should" the tournament organisers increase the pay of top male players, if they're only likely to annoy the female players, feminists etc. as a result, and not gain anything extra from the male players, who are going to be staying in the tournament and playing to the best of their ability regardless?

How does it benefit them to change anything?


Sorry, just to clarify, I don't think they should change the prize money, that was the point of my post.
Original post by TheNote
prove it.


The current state of men's tennis proves it. Players are not avoiding or boycotting tournaments. The US and Australian Opens have been paying equal prize money for half a century, and no mass boycott from male players has occurred as a result.
Original post by BubbleBoobies
I think it would be ridiculous to pay female players the same as male players when a) they play less sets


Only at Grand Slams - every other tournament they play the same.

and b) they bring in less audience members and hence money.


The obscure lesser men's players bring in less audience members than the top men's players (and, to be honest, the top female players). Should they therefore earn less prize money, regardless of how well they actually perform at the tournament?
I think that the remuneration offered to both male and female tennis players should be brought into line with that awarded to Premier League footballers.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
Only at Grand Slams - every other tournament they play the same.


okay - then I'll apply this to the grand slams?

The obscure lesser men's players bring in less audience members than the top men's players (and, to be honest, the top female players). Should they therefore earn less prize money, regardless of how well they actually perform at the tournament?


who measures how well a person performs? that's pretty impossible to do with so many variables
who measures how many tickets are sold? that's very straightforward by contrast
either way, even if you have the most talented person in the world playing for a team, if they attract no audience, they get no money. they might get praise from the sport community, but capitalism isn't solely about how you are - it's about how turns up and pays. and men get a lot more payers than women on top of being better.

Quick Reply

Latest