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)
    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
    men will not attend tournaments that do not pay enough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    why should they they play less sets than men so why should they get the same pay when they start playing the same game time as men then they can have it equal
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the campaign slogan was equal pay for equal work? Has it changed to equal pay for less work?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comedy_Gold)
    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.
    I agree with the logic, but it's hard to quantitatively disentangle the draw of men and women's matches in slams because they're run together. Even crowds numbers and viewing figures aren't perfect because spectators might watch a men's match than a women's on the same court on the same day.

    This was debated a while back and I did a back of the envelope calculation for the separate male and female tournaments on the tour. Women prize money was something like 30% of men's.

    Tennis is a real anomaly in that woman can earn similar amounts to men. The only comparable sport I can think of is mixed martial arts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    I agree with the logic, but it's hard to quantitatively disentangle the draw of men and women's matches in slams because they're run together. Even crowds numbers and viewing figures aren't perfect because spectators might watch a men's match than a women's on the same court on the same day.

    This was debated a while back and I did a back of the envelope calculation for the separate male and female tournaments on the tour. Women prize money was something like 30% of men's.

    Tennis is a real anomaly in that woman can earn similar amounts to men. The only comparable sport I can think of is mixed martial arts.
    They could organize them at different times or charge separately for TV rights, sponsoring, tickets, etc. The women's competition would bring in far less money. Basketball in the US works in a similar way, the WNBA loses millions every year and can only exist because the NBA is bankrolling it. It wouldn't be so bad with tennis (since it's watched for various reasons : middle-class pastime, russian eye candy, national support etc) but their intake would see a huge drop.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's for anyone other than the organisers of the tournament to comment on what the prize money for men or women ought to be. Their job is simply to offer enough prize money such that it attracts the quality of player and the quality of tennis that they're looking for. They seem to be fine with it currently, so it's all good.

    If male tennis players think they're not getting paid enough based on the revenues they bring in, they can always just decide not to play in that tournament. The risk of that would put pressure on the tournament organisers to increase their prize money. But currently it's not thought of as such a significant risk.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I don't think it's for anyone other than the organisers of the tournament to comment on what the prize money for men or women ought to be. Their job is simply to offer enough prize money such that it attracts the quality of player and the quality of tennis that they're looking for. They seem to be fine with it currently, so it's all good.

    If male tennis players think they're not getting paid enough based on the revenues they bring in, they can always just decide not to play in that tournament. The risk of that would put pressure on the tournament organisers to increase their prize money. But currently it's not thought of as such a significant risk.
    The problem with that is that we don't live in a perfect free market, libertarian vacuum. To quote myself from an earlier reply:

    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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    men will not attend tournaments that do not pay enough.
    Demonstrably false - and most tournaments have had equal prize money since they went professional in the 1960s.

    Which also, again, doesn't answer the question of why "those who bring in more sponsorship/crowds should get more prize money" is a valid argument for men and women collectively, but not for individual players.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    If male tennis players think they're not getting paid enough based on the revenues they bring in, they can always just decide not to play in that tournament. The risk of that would put pressure on the tournament organisers to increase their prize money. But currently it's not thought of as such a significant risk.
    It would be a major risk for the players - it would damage their reputation (I doubt the average person will look with great sympathy on multi-millionaire top tennis players striking for higher pay) and, if they miss big tournaments, they'll see their ranking nosedive.

    Bear in mind that this is also only really a principle that the top players would want to fight for - the lesser male players know they also generally bring in less than they get back in prize money.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Demonstrably false
    prove it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebor)
    The problem with that is that we don't live in a perfect free market, libertarian vacuum. To quote myself from an earlier reply:
    I don't really see why that highlights a problem with what I said. My point is that it's not for any of us to be deciding what prize money should be given to tennis players, any more than it's up to anyone else to decide how much I pay my gardener.

    The tournament organisers just pay as they see fit, balancing all factors involved (including those you mentioned).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    It would be a major risk for the players - it would damage their reputation (I doubt the average person will look with great sympathy on multi-millionaire top tennis players striking for higher pay) and, if they miss big tournaments, they'll see their ranking nosedive.
    So then why "should" the tournament organisers increase the pay of top male players, if they're only likely to annoy the female players, feminists etc. as a result, and not gain anything extra from the male players, who are going to be staying in the tournament and playing to the best of their ability regardless?

    How does it benefit them to change anything?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think it would be ridiculous to pay female players the same as male players when a) they play less sets, and b) they bring in less audience members and hence money.
    anybody who thinks women should be paid the same amount of money as men in tennis cannot understand how the principle of merit works - merit is regardless of gender
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I don't really see why that highlights a problem with what I said. My point is that it's not for any of us to be deciding what prize money should be given to tennis players, any more than it's up to anyone else to decide how much I pay my gardener.

    The tournament organisers just pay as they see fit, balancing all factors involved (including those you mentioned).
    What if social justice warriors and the marxist media called you a racist, misogynist, white male oppressor and that would affect your job position, social status or business relations? You'd end up paying whatever they blackmail you into paying, whether you like it or not... or suffer the consequences. We don't live in a libertarian vacuum, we live in a marxist, PC, guilt and shame society. The market decides what you pay your gardener, it's not the same for tennis.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebor)
    What if social justice warriors and the marxist media called you a racist, misogynist, white male oppressor and that would affect your job position, social status or business relations? You'd end up paying whatever they blackmail you into paying, whether you like it or not... or suffer the consequences. We don't live in a libertarian vacuum, we live in a marxist, PC, guilt and shame society. The market decides what you pay your gardener, it's not the same for tennis.
    But then that's exactly what I'm saying. If the organisers of tennis tournaments pay women less, they'll have all these people to answer to, potentially damage their reputations etc. Whereas if they continue as they are, they're not losing anything in terms of male participants. So why "should" they change anything? What do they stand to gain from it?

    My point is that the amount that they "should" pay male and female players depends on whatever suits them, all consequences considered. It's not about whether or not you and I consider it fair or morally right. The fundamental reason why such tournaments exist in the first place is to benefit the organisers in terms of making them a profit. So it's purely up to the organisers to ask themselves "At the end of the day, under which set of circumstances are we better off?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    no, because then roger federer would identify himself as a woman and enter female tennis competition for easy prize money lol
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    So then why "should" the tournament organisers increase the pay of top male players, if they're only likely to annoy the female players, feminists etc. as a result, and not gain anything extra from the male players, who are going to be staying in the tournament and playing to the best of their ability regardless?

    How does it benefit them to change anything?
    Sorry, just to clarify, I don't think they should change the prize money, that was the point of my post.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    prove it.
    The current state of men's tennis proves it. Players are not avoiding or boycotting tournaments. The US and Australian Opens have been paying equal prize money for half a century, and no mass boycott from male players has occurred as a result.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    I think it would be ridiculous to pay female players the same as male players when a) they play less sets
    Only at Grand Slams - every other tournament they play the same.

    and b) they bring in less audience members and hence money.
    The obscure lesser men's players bring in less audience members than the top men's players (and, to be honest, the top female players). Should they therefore earn less prize money, regardless of how well they actually perform at the tournament?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think that the remuneration offered to both male and female tennis players should be brought into line with that awarded to Premier League footballers.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.