Should female tennis players have equal prizes?

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

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

Wimbledon's ticket revenues seem to get along more than fine despite awarding prize money on merit in the tournament rather than popularity.

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.

...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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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...

except the network gets money via more viewers. and more viewers via trump.

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.

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.