Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should female tennis players have equal prizes? watch

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

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spotify95)
    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.
    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.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.

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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Of course the men should earn more.

    They deserve more since their game brings in MUCH more interest and 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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comedy_Gold)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by salemN)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    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.)
    I don't think that fainting would be a good idea at all.

    In which case, either drop the mens tournaments to 3 sets, or increase the pay for mens, so that they get paid the same amount of money per set as the womens.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spotify95)
    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.
    Indeed, so you agree that that's why men and women get more than the juniors etc... well by the same logic, men should get more than women, because they get more airing on TV. So you've just agreed with me.

    You're twisting your reasoning to fit the conclusion you've already reached... "It should be based on sets played, but not when that means wheelchair tennis players get as much as women". "It should be based on hours aired on TV, but not when that means women get less that men".
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by salemN)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by salemN)
    "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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by difeo)
    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 explained to her that King was by far the best female player in the world at the time and in her prime while the man was 55 (26 years her senior). If she can't see why comparing the two is irrelevant in less than a second trying to reason with her is just a waste of the time. Murray himself said he'd be surprised if any women broke into the top 1k ATP. Serena would find it almost impossible beating guys in the challengers, never mind proper pros. She's made zillions of dollars by clubbing 125 lbs russian girls from the baseline.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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 the tournament is about whoever wins gets the biggest prize and they deserve that prize because of the prowess, a good winner brings in more views, if you just gave it to whoever was most popular it would be extremely boring.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    women should be paid equally, just make them play equally as well. 5 sets.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    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
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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

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