Do women deserve equal prizes at Wimbledon?

Poll

Do women deserve equal prizes at Wimbledon?

First of all , anyone who watches tennis knows that ATP and WTA are different planets in terms of quality and the former is much more popular. As Serena herself said when ''challenged'' by Murray:

Serena

"I doubt I'd win a point, but that would be fun," she replied unconvincingly.

Now, let's talk about the main points:

1. Men attract more advertising and have much higher TV ratings on average (also, as said, amplified by longer matches so more breaks for ads) . These are the highest TV numbers from the last years not including Murray (for obvious reasons) : the peak for men was 11m and the average was 7m people compared to an average of 3.5m and peak of just over 4m for the 2009 Women's singles final (Williams v Williams).

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jul/06/roger-federer-wimbledon-ratings

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jul/06/4m-watch-williams-sisters

2. The men attract more spectators on average and also have higher ticket prices for the semis and final.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/tickets/201205091336561699698.html

3. And then there's the number of sets played but that IMO is the least important issue. You don't have a time card in pro sports, you get paid according to your achievement and the popularity (cash flow) of your sport. However, there are two issues : since men's matches are much longer they sell more adverts on TV or food/drinks in the stands and men are too tired to play in the doubles taking place later in the day which can be very lucrative for the non-superstars.

Think about this : what if both male and female football World Cup were held at the same time, should both sexes receive the same money? The WC winning team in Brazil will win $35m. The difference in sponsors, advertising and popularity between the two competition is cosmic.

So we are basically stuck with two choices:

1. Equality of outcomes : pay women the same for lower quality''work'' with money provided by the men's competition.

2. Equality of opportunity : women play men and have the chance to compete for the same prizes.

(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

RedArrow

Secretly all ladiez want to equal pay but lesser work. They can't fool RedArrow :cool;

Reply 2

MidnightDream

They should only have equal pay if they play the same number of sets in my opinion :smile:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3

Tom Whaley

Should be a flat rate for each set played, and then a cut of any ad revenue gained during the match.

Reply 4

jamieTT

Original post by MidnightDream

They should only had equal pay if they play the same number of sets in my opinion :smile:

So the women's world cup winning team should get the same prizes as the men's from FIFA? Even though the men bring in 99% of the money? I mean they all play 90 min.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 5

MidnightDream

Original post by jamieTT

So the women's world cup winning team should get the same prizes as the men's from FIFA? Even though the men bring in 99% of the money?

Hmm that's a good point point, the men bring in most of the money therefore they should have the higher pay and to be honest not as many people watch the womens World Cup :smile:

Reply 6

Zarek

Don't give a monkeys. I would like all of them to be paid a lot less. Seems to me to be more of a market forces than a discrimination issue though. Like why would you choose discriminate in this niche overpaid tournament. Perhaps there is a bigger picture argument.

Reply 7

samba

Yes. They deserve the opportunity to play in the mens game should they so choose.

Woman's tennis is bad. If they choose to play in that they should be paid less.

Reply 8

jamieTT

Original post by Zarek

The few male players who spoke out against it got lambasted and labeled all sorts of things. The organizers did this because of political pressure. Because, seemingly, paying men more for higher quality work and higher cash contribution to the organization is sexist. If anything, the women were already making too much before the prizes were made equal. We live in a world where equal outcomes have become far more important than equal opportunities.

Last year Prime Minister Tony Blair and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell joined the Lawn Tennis Association, the governing body of British tennis, and the Women's Tennis Association, the rulers of the women's game worldwide, in calling for an end to the inequality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6385295.stm

Reply 9

slade p

no because they dont play the same amount of sets as the men do.

Reply 10

redferry

I don't get the sets issue, they still train as hard for the rest of the year...
Wimbledon is still the same competition so they should be paid the same. If the world cups were the same competition I would argue they should be paid the same but they aren't. I see nothing wrong with the redistribution of wealth to women's sports given how ridiculously rich the male players are.

Reply 11

Mankytoes

Original post by samba

Yes. They deserve the opportunity to play in the mens game should they so choose.

Woman's tennis is bad. If they choose to play in that they should be paid less.

True, it's a non contact sport, they can play men, like in darts and that.

I think anyone who is into tennis knows there is a significant quality gap.

No, they shouldn't earn the same, but fair play to them for achieving it. Capitalism isn't about earning what you deserve- if it was you could argue women should earn the same, as they try as hard, just like people who think soldiers should get paid more than footballers. They put on the pressure to earn as much as possible, and achieved it.

Reply 12

samba

Original post by redferry

You think women tennis players are most in need of charity, should we decide to forcibly redistribute wealth from the male tennis players who actually earned it? Why shouldn't women who want a decent amount of money play in the mens game if they want to make more?

Reply 13

jamieTT

Original post by redferry

It is not the same competition. Women don't play against men. They are of lower quality but receive the same prizes. And the male players are so rich because they beat the best of the best. Which are men. And btw , women have many other ways of making money simply by being attractive, mediocre female tennis player get million dollar sponsorships and endorsements. They make plenty of money, trust me.

The WNBA wouldn't even exist without the NBA bankrolling it, it loses millions every single year. Much like in society, once again, men are forced to subsidize women. If women want to be taken seriously they need to go toe to toe with the men and win, not cry sexism every single time the outcomes don't favor them.

Reply 14

redferry

Original post by samba

Because they will lose all the time due to their natural physical disadvantage???

You may as well say women shouldn't play tennis.

Well in my opinion no one should play tennis, I hate the sport, but I'm all for equality if you are dedicating the same amount of time to your job.

Reply 15

redferry

Original post by jamieTT

Not if they're ugly they don't! I think they deserve to be paid as much just for all the bloody oggling they have to put up with to be honest.

Arguing women should go head to head with men in sport is just arguing women shouldn't play sport.

The way things are at the moment with women in sport is like an employee paying less than men for the same hours.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 16

samba

Original post by redferry

Serena williams is a beast; she'd be fine. The 'natural physical disadvantage' argument is crap in sport anyway - should smaller basketball players be compensated for being small, or white sprinters be compensated for being white? Maybe everybody should be compensated because they are at a physical disadvantage to Usain Bolt? Sport is about 3 things, physicality, talent, and effort.

League 2 footballers dedicate the same time to their job as Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi. A nurse dedicates the same time as a doctor or lawyer. It's silly to say 'you put in the same effort, you should be paid the same'

Women should play tennis professionally if they can generate the income to make a good livelihood. And they can; female tennis players aren't exactly poor lol.

Not sure if this is 'feminist redferry' or 'socialist redferry' speaking tbh. :p:

But I was approaching it from a gender perspective!

Reply 17

redferry

The one that really confuses me though is why aren't there more women in snooker? Seriously??? If I ever have a daughter I'm going to train her up to be snooker champion of the world :tongue:

Reply 18

redferry

Original post by samba

In an ideal world for me money would be redistributed through the football leagues.

You can't compare 2 different jobs though, I'm talking about the exact same job here!

Women should play tennis professionally if they can generate the income to make a good livelihood. And they can; female tennis players aren't exactly poor lol.

Not sure if this is 'feminist redferry' or 'socialist redferry' speaking tbh. :p:

But I was approaching it from a gender perspective!

A mix of both I suppose :tongue:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 19

jamieTT

Original post by redferry

No, it's saying that women should have their own league but not expect the same prizes unless they bring in the same money as the men. Should all the other events get the same prize money then?

Gentlemen's Singles
Ladies' Singles
Gentlemen's Doubles
Ladies' Doubles
Mixed Doubles
Boys' Singles
Girls' Singles
Boys' Doubles
Girls' Doubles
Disabled Doubles