Should female tennis players have equal prizes?

Of course the men should earn more.

They deserve more since their game brings in MUCH more interest and money.

It's a no brainer. Supply and demand dictates market value.

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.

men who have been retired for 15 years lmao

In fact, that whole event is really something that people on your side of the argument should be trying to keep away from the debate. At aged 55 he lost narrowly to King and actually beat the world no.1, that's not a record that really supports you

Well its funny how it was Briggs himself who challenged King. You can bring up all your arguments but at the end of the day she won. The thing with this whole debate is people are protecting men as if they aren't protected enough. There are tremendous male players, who I agree are better than some women. But please there is an emphasis on the SOME. Please educate yourself on some of the amazing female players. Have you even seen a female tennis match? We should be focusing on the individuals play rather than their sex.

No it shouldn't. The juniors, seniors and wheelchair players should earn as per set as the men should they, despite no one caring about them?



It's about how much money is brought into the game as a whole

It's inevitable that if 5 set matches were introduced into women's tennis we would have a LOT of fainting/resignations/really low quality tennis towards the end of the match etc.
Look at how tiring some of the men's five setters are; for example, Djokovic vs Nadal in that one 6 hour Aus Open final. Things would certainly go wrong if WTA players started trying to do things like that.
(I'm not talking about every female tennis player when I say this btw.)

Nope, I didn't mean that in my post. I was referring directly to the men's tennis vs the female's tennis - they get the most airing on the TV.

As for juniors, seniors, wheelchair players etc, I'm not saying that they should earn as much as the mens, but mens and womens should be equal pay per set. So if the mens play 5 sets, and the womens play 3 sets, the mens get paid more. If they both play 5 sets, they both get the same money.

Hence why they generally get more personal sponsorship money. Why does that determine the question of prize money, which, as the name suggests, is a prize for reaching a certain stage in the tournament, not merely a division of commercial revenue.

In last year's Wimbledon, Rafa Nadal undoubtedly brought in far more money and interest than James Ward. Should Nadal therefore have received much more money, despite the fact that Ward actually performed better, getting a round further?

She won, but it proves nothing. There are no 55 year olds playing professional tennis, so it's completely irrelevant. It would be like Serena playing me and when she wins, you saying "see some women can beat some men"...

"There are tremendous male players, who I agree are better than some women." They're better than ALL women, as Serena herself admitted: "I doubt I'd win a point vs Murray".

We are focusing on the individuals' play (i.e if you win the tournament you get more than if you go out in the first round). It's actually the equal pay that doesn't focus on individuals but on gender, seeing as any match between men's winner vs women's winner, men's first round loser vs women's first round loser, would be ridiculously one sided yet they get the same.

Serena admits one man would beat her so now apparently ALL men are better than ALL women. Your logic doesn't make sense. You simply cannot say "They're better than ALL women". You actually believe that another person cannot beat another in a game of tennis simply because they have a vagina. You yourself are focusing on sex. Your whole argument is showing men to be better than women. No one is better than anyone because of their sex. This is more than just tennis. You show yourself to be unwilling to accept valid points. You can argue all your points about how ALL men are better than women
but you are very wrong my friend.

This whole post is arguing against something that I didn't say. You read it wrong. I never said "ALL men are better than ALL women", I said the tremendous (say, any in the top 200) men are better than all women.

"I said the tremendous (say, any in the top 200) men are better than all women)."You still imply that men (selected men) are better than all women. The fact that you are using select men (top 200) then saying all women (generalising) doesn't make sense and cannot be a valid point.

What are you talking about lol, it makes complete sense

Serena is the best woman
She herself admits Murray is far better than her
So Murray is better than the best woman
So Murray is better than all women

Same applies for all the top men

This isn't a hard concept

I see your point but I wasn't talking specifically about prize money so my mistake there.
However, the men's game brings in so much more money, and it only makes sense that the same proportion of the money earned is given as prizes in each of the men's and women's games.

Prize money is a prize for winning matches, not a division of revenue based on how much of it you brought in (which would be almost impossible to precisely calculate anyway). When Federer plays someone obscure in the first round of a Grand Slam, the crowd and viewers will be almost entirely there to watch Federer rather than his opponent - by your logic, Federer should therefore automatically get far more prize money for the match, even if he loses.

Why is it a justified distinction to make between men and women collectively but not between individual players, where it is arguably far more pertinent?

Posted from TSR Mobile

because prize money is dictated by how popular and well funded the tournament is, most tournaments are funded through sponsorship, and whichever brings in the most value for the sponsors will likely get more money due to the fact that the sponsors value them more.

And why would distributing prize money differently make a tournament more popular and or more likely to get more sponsorship money?

Posted from TSR Mobile