Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should female tennis players have equal prizes? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should female tennis players get the same prizes as men?
    No
    63
    81.82%
    Yes
    14
    18.18%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I think at Grand Slam level where the men actually play more sets, it's fair to say men should get more. At other tournaments where both play best of 3 sets, it should be equal. The "who brings in more money" argument is stupid - by that logic, the more popular, well-known players should always get more prize money regardless of how far they actually get.
    ...how is that stupid? that would make total sense. it would be a sad state of affairs, but if they were to leave that team as the most popular and crowd pleasing individual, their association would lose ticket revenues, and therefore, that individual has an ability to ask for a raise. that's not stupid though, is it? for instance, do you think many people would watch a republican debate if trump didn't participate? a similar situation actually happened last year where he *threatened* to not turn up
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think society shouldn't have pressured tennis organisations into paying equal prize money to men and women, for all the reasons people keep giving.

    However, I don't think anyone 'deserves' anything. It's completely up to the competitions what prize money they award, and none of anyone else's business really. I'm sure male tennis players are quite capable of representing their own interests, if they really have the leverage which people claim they do.

    edit: I voted 'no' because I don't think female tennis players 'should' be paid as much as men. However, I don't think men 'should' be paid more, either.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    ...how is that stupid? that would make total sense. it would be a sad state of affairs, but if they were to leave that team as the most popular and crowd pleasing individual, their association would lose ticket revenues
    Wimbledon's ticket revenues seem to get along more than fine despite awarding prize money on merit in the tournament rather than popularity.

    for instance, do you think many people would watch a republican debate if trump didn't participate? a similar situation actually happened last year where he *threatened* to not turn up
    Which is not a remotely similar scenario, as there is no prize money in the GOP debates or primaries, and the debates are not in themselves formal contests, but part of a campaign for the actual contests of the primaries.

    I expect far more people watched the debates this time round with Trump than watched the GOP debates in 2008 or 2012. But in the actual contests of the primaries, Trump has performed far worse than John McCain and Mitt Romney did.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Wimbledon's ticket revenues seem to get along more than fine despite awarding prize money on merit in the tournament rather than popularity.
    so you haven't explained how it's "stupid", as I asked; you've simply told me how it is "at least satisfaction". wow. a round of applause to you...

    Which is not a remotely similar scenario, as there is no prize money in the GOP debates or primaries, and the debates are not in themselves formal contests, but part of a campaign for the actual contests of the primaries.
    except the network gets money via more viewers. and more viewers via trump.

    I expect far more people watched the debates this time round with Trump than watched the GOP debates in 2008 or 2012. But in the actual contests of the primaries, Trump has performed far worse than John McCain and Mitt Romney did.
    that's total irrelevant again - you were saying that it was "stupid" to apply a general mechanism that would make sense vis-a-vis incentives. you have, again, failed to explain how merit, as opposed to the satisfaction of demand, is what really brings in the audience. I put it to you that merit is merely one form of the satisfaction of demand. you can satisfy demand via other kinds of appeal. that's not "stupid". that is true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If there is less money being brought in then the price money will be less.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    ...how is that stupid? that would make total sense. it would be a sad state of affairs, but if they were to leave that team as the most popular and crowd pleasing individual, their association would lose ticket revenues, and therefore, that individual has an ability to ask for a raise. that's not stupid though, is it? for instance, do you think many people would watch a republican debate if trump didn't participate? a similar situation actually happened last year where he *threatened* to not turn up
    He's a marxist, don't bother reasoning with him.


    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    However, I don't think anyone 'deserves' anything. It's completely up to the competitions what prize money they award, and none of anyone else's business really. I'm sure male tennis players are quite capable of representing their own interests, if they really have the leverage which people claim they do.
    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....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No. For starters men bring in more money as I'm sure everyone has said (haven't read much of the thread). But furthermore men are competing at a higher level. Yes there are biological reasons for this, but I'm sure there are plenty of men who, for biological reasons, could never hope to compete at the professional male level, hence I can't sympathise with any argument along the lines of "oh they work just as hard and are the best that they can be" or whatever.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Women only do 60% of the work in tennis, and yet get paid the same....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Only if women are capable of achieving a similarly high level of playing standards, or are able to draw in a similarly high amount of sponsorship revenue for the tournaments they participate in. Trying to claim that women invest "equal effort" or are "in the same profession" and as such entitled to identical payments regardless of their performance is missing the point.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    In the grand slams they do less work
    In pretty much all tournaments they bring in less money
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If they play the same number of sets and rounds, yes.
    If not, no.

    Your poll needs to be more specific.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Men only play 5 sets at Grand Slams, everywhere else they play best of 3 as well.

    There has been some talk of some sort of partial introduction of 5 set matches at women's Grand Slam tournaments - I've read a couple of articles suggesting they might consider bringing them in from quarter-finals onwards - and I think this might be a good idea, at least as a trial.
    Aah, didn't know this as I'm not a huge tennis fan, though I know at places such as Wimbledon the mens play 5 sets and the womens just 3 sets. It'd definitely be interesting if they trialled 5 sets for female players as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All the points about men bringing in more revenue due to sponsors and TV coverage are correct. Of course they make more money because more money is put in them. Little boys are encouraged to take up sports more than little girls. Boys are encouraged more through sponsors, coaches and number of people that attend matches. Yes, men make more money but only because they have more opportunities to do so. Not that women don't have these opportunities but they certainly are not as enforced or as big as mens.


    Also in 1973, a match between Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King, King beat Riggs 6–4, 6–3, 6–3. This shows women can very well beat men.
    However i do think that pay should ultimately depend on the individual and their performance and revunue. Men do create more revunue so perhaps we should look at women creating more revunue and inspiring the next generation of tennis players to be more balanced.
    Also branding women who care about equality as a 'mental illness' is unecessary and genralising. I think there are plenty of women who understand the business side to such things and some may even share the same views as you. Nonetheless you are entitled to your opinions but its easy to put down other peoples issues if you do not go through it yourself. Have a good day.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by salemN)
    All the points about men bringing in more revenue due to sponsors and TV coverage are correct. Of course they make more money because more money is put in them. Little boys are encouraged to take up sports more than little girls. Boys are encouraged more through sponsors, coaches and number of people that attend matches. Yes, men make more money but only because they have more opportunities to do so. Not that women don't have these opportunities but they certainly are not as enforced or as big as mens.


    Also in 1973, a match between Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King, King beat Riggs 6–4, 6–3, 6–3. This shows women can very well beat men.
    However i do think that pay should ultimately depend on the individual and their performance and revunue. Men do create more revunue so perhaps we should look at women creating more revunue and inspiring the next generation of tennis players to be more balanced.
    Also branding women who care about equality as a 'mental illness' is unecessary and genralising. I think there are plenty of women who understand the business side to such things and some may even share the same views as you. Nonetheless you are entitled to your opinions but its easy to put down other peoples issues if you do not go through it yourself. Have a good day.
    Most tennis players come from wealthy backgrounds, it's an expensive sport. Plenty of girls are sent to academies by rich parents so this isn't the same as football or other sports where women don't have the same opportunities or facilities. I come from a small country in EE and even here there are quite a few rich girls who are ''pros'' (basically their whole ''career'' is bankrolled by daddy and they barely win any matches, never mind titles). And tennis is by far the most lucrative and popular women's sports, just check the huge amounts in prizes up for grabs each year. On top of this, women are also far more likely to be pampered by sponsors and get all sort of endorsements even when they are **** at the sport. Opportunity is not an issue for women in tennis, if anything they have it better than the men since a lot of tournaments piggyback on the men's and the other reasons I mentioned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_WTA_Tour#January

    The match you mentioned is completely irrelevant : King was in her prime and by far the best female player in the world at the time (won 3 out of 4 GS that year) and she beat a 55 yo man (26 years older than herself). Not exactly a worthy achievement, is it?

    And I didn't say wanting equality is a mental disease, only the social justice marxist version of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebor)
    Most tennis players come from wealthy backgrounds, it's an expensive sport. Plenty of girls are sent to academies by rich parents so this isn't the same as football or other sports where women don't have the same opportunities or facilities. I come from a small country in EE and even here there are quite a few rich girls who are ''pros'' (basically their whole ''career'' is bankrolled by daddy and they barely win any matches, never mind titles). And tennis is by far the most lucrative and popular women's sports, just check the huge amounts in prizes up for grabs each year. On top of this, women are also far more likely to be pampered by sponsors and get all sort of endorsements even when they are **** at the sport. Opportunity is not an issue for women in tennis, if anything they have it better than the men since a lot of tournaments piggyback on the men's and the other reasons I mentioned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_WTA_Tour#January

    The match you mentioned is completely irrelevant : King was in her prime and by far the best female player in the world at the time (won 3 out of 4 GS that year) and she beat a 55 yo man (26 years older than herself). Not exactly a worthy achievement, is it?

    And I didn't say wanting equality is a mental disease, only the social justice marxist version of it.
    I agree many tennis players come from privileged backgrounds, male or female. But take the example of the Williams sisters. They came from a poorer background, not to mention their race making it harder to get opportunities (lets be real we all know this is true). Their father trained them and now they are worldwide known. I don't think its fair to label them as ****. I know you weren't referring to all female players but I think its just as easy to list a bunch of bad male players and generalise all male players to this. As for the King vs Briggs match, your reply was a common when the match took place. Yes there is a significant age difference but nonetheless she won, in fact Briggs himself was the one who pressured King to take the match.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spotify95)
    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.

    You play more sets, you earn more money. That's how it should be :yep:
    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?

    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I think at Grand Slam level where the men actually play more sets, it's fair to say men should get more. At other tournaments where both play best of 3 sets, it should be equal. The "who brings in more money" argument is stupid - by that logic, the more popular, well-known players should always get more prize money regardless of how far they actually get.
    It's about how much money is brought into the game as a whole
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by salemN)
    All the points about men bringing in more revenue due to sponsors and TV coverage are correct. Of course they make more money because more money is put in them. Little boys are encouraged to take up sports more than little girls. Boys are encouraged more through sponsors, coaches and number of people that attend matches. Yes, men make more money but only because they have more opportunities to do so. Not that women don't have these opportunities but they certainly are not as enforced or as big as mens.


    Also in 1973, a match between Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King, King beat Riggs 6–4, 6–3, 6–3. This shows women can very well beat men.
    However i do think that pay should ultimately depend on the individual and their performance and revunue. Men do create more revunue so perhaps we should look at women creating more revunue and inspiring the next generation of tennis players to be more balanced.
    Also branding women who care about equality as a 'mental illness' is unecessary and genralising. I think there are plenty of women who understand the business side to such things and some may even share the same views as you. Nonetheless you are entitled to your opinions but its easy to put down other peoples issues if you do not go through it yourself. Have a good day.
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I think they should get the same amount because that's fair! I'm a female tennis player and it's really upsetting that there still isn't equality
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebor)
    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...
    Of course the men should earn more.

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

    If they were to play against women, they would wipe the walls with them and earn all the money; women would earn virtually nothing, so it's only fair that they get paid more in their game; otherwise just put the two together if you want it to be so 'equal'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    so you haven't explained how it's "stupid", as I asked; you've simply told me how it is "at least satisfaction". wow. a round of applause to you...
    I don't know why you've added quote marks in the second case, as I never said those words.

    It's a stupid argment because there is no reason why it should be simply confined to male players collectively vs female players collectively - the logical conclusion of it is that it should extend to individuals.

    except the network gets money via more viewers. and more viewers via trump.
    And so what? What's the relevance of this to tennis tournament prize money?

    that's total irrelevant again - you were saying that it was "stupid" to apply a general mechanism that would make sense vis-a-vis incentives. you have, again, failed to explain how merit, as opposed to the satisfaction of demand, is what really brings in the audience.
    What brings in the audience is irrelevant to my point, which is a normative one about who deserves prize money. Why would the audience (at least directly) care much about how prize money is distributed anyway?

    I put it to you that merit is merely one form of the satisfaction of demand. you can satisfy demand via other kinds of appeal. that's not "stupid". that is true.
    But as noted above, "satisfaction of demand" is not the relevant measuring stick here. The question is not how the audience's demand is satisfied, but how much players deserve at tourmanents.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.