Turn on thread page Beta

Feminists - do women deserve the same prize money at Wimbledon for doing less? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:


    Well?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    People often use "number of sets played" as an argument, but I don't really think that's relevant.

    It's about who generates more interest and hence ticket sales and revenue, and that is quite obviously the men. Therefore they deserve higher prize money. I would argue that the women's singles benefits massively from being held alongside the men's singles event - if it wasn't, I can't imagine it would get anywhere near as much attention.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    People often use "number of sets played" as an argument, but I don't really think that's relevant.

    It's about who generates more interest and hence ticket sales and revenue, and that is quite obviously the men. Therefore they deserve higher prize money. I would argue that the women's singles benefits massively from being held alongside the men's singles event - if it wasn't, I can't imagine it would get anywhere near as much attention.
    This is SO true. Such a valid point.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I think its simply a PR move. The equal prize money in tennis is not to do with any of the factors in the video above, I think the reasoning is simply that if you win a Wimbledon title, you get a set amount of money, regardless of gender.

    I would be interested to see what the doubles players earn. The doubles players should by logical reasoning earn half the amount each the singles players do, although I doubt they do. Surely applying the 'equal prize money for all' reasoning the women did, then they are discriminated against if the money is not equal?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    People often use "number of sets played" as an argument, but I don't really think that's relevant.

    It's about who generates more interest and hence ticket sales and revenue, and that is quite obviously the men. Therefore they deserve higher prize money. I would argue that the women's singles benefits massively from being held alongside the men's singles event - if it wasn't, I can't imagine it would get anywhere near as much attention.
    It is cyclical, though. Before the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray era the Mens game wasn't all that notable and the Womens was the more popular. The most famous players were, rightly or wrongly, Kournikova and Hingis - the former for being marketable and the latter for skill. The Mens game neither had the personalities nor the out and out talent.

    Who's to say in another 5+yrs it won't go back the other way?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Women want to play equal sets to men. And if they did, they would not argue they are working harder. They are currently arguing that they work equally as hard because the majority of time spent on the court is minimal in comparison to the training they do all year round, which is prob equal to a mans training. I highly doubt a women says 'I am only playing this amount of sets so i will only put 5 hours of training in today.' That mentality is not likely to be taken by women. Female tennis players train of-court the same number of hours as men.

    Also, Wimbledon not changing the rules to allow women the opportunity to play equal sets, takes the option out of women's hands.

    The ticket price is fair, as the only reason why female tennis (and female sport in general) is not as popular as male tennis is because women where deliberately held back and where deliberately put in the background of male sport predominantly by the media and by the competition holders. It will take several more generations for people to enjoy or accept female sport as entertaining because the current generations are not as used to seeing it.

    It is only recently that the media has started to televise female football on mainstream TV. We need to change societies attitudes to female sport by now making them an equal, which they should have been dating back centuries.

    The more equal women are treated within sports, the more popular female sport will become. It's a chauvinist mentality that has led to the conclusions presented in the video above. If you looked at it from the females perspective regards opportunity, lack of encouragement into sport, lack of equal media opportunity and the fight for equality regards what a women's role is in society, perhaps the conclusion would be different.

    Although they would not openly admit it, many men hate the idea women can play at their level. This is why women have been prevented from participating along side men in major sports competitions such as rally racing, darts and snooker.

    If I where a tennis player i would not expect anything less than equal pay. And i would be prepared to play the same number of sets.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, the mass majority of work both players do is in year-round practice. The number of sets they play is irrelevant in contrast to the sheer number of unpaid hours they do.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It is cyclical, though. Before the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray era the mens game wasn't all that notable and the Womens was the more popular. The most famous players were, rightly or wrongly, Kournikova and Hingis - the former for being marketable and the latter for skill. The mens game neither had the personalities nor the out and out talent.

    Who's to say in another 5+yrs it won't go back the other way?
    Yeah, I remember when the women's were more popular. It depends on where the current popular players are. People like Nedal, Federer and Murray etc because they are big names not particularly because they are men. In five years time it might have switched back, especially in the UK if a British female player gets near the finals and there aren't many British men doing so well (like it is currently with the men)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, they should play up to 5 sets or get paid less, it's only fair.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    As Chief Wiggum says, the number of sets played or 'how hard you work' is not really relevant here.

    Andy Murray works hard, but does he work harder than a doctor, a soldier, a fireman etc?

    Global tennis is a multi billion pound industry that generates loads of revenues from ticket sales, sponsorship and TV rights. How that revenue is distributed is down to agreements between the players and the organisers.

    I would suspect that if we are really honest, most of that value generated comes from a handful of top male players. Those are the guys that drive the interest. It's a bit like golf: when Tiger Woods was on the rack over his marriage in the press, some other players came out and made the point that Woods was the reason a lot of pro golfers had made so much money on the tour: he had driven the interest and other players got paid above their market value because of Woods.

    I think the reason they have equal prize money at Wimbledon is a gesture of gender equality. Given that they sell Wimbledon as a package of mens and womens tennis its impossible to tell exactly how much of the value generated is due to womens tennis but its unlikely to be half. It probably serves nobody to have a break away mens and womens tour and have different Grand Slam events for women so the men accept it.

    It's impossible to say this definitively without testing it with breakaway competitions etc but if the question is "do tennis players get pay equal to the returns of the value they generate" then I would suspect the answer is no, the womens players are paid over the value they generate, the majority of male players are paid over the value they generate, and the top male players, despite being huge earners, are paid below the value they generate, and they are effectively subsidising the others. I suppose the top male players don't mind because they have a route for individual earnings through personal sponsorship which isn't open to other players.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In nearly every other sport women playfor exactly the same amount of time but the rewards they get for it are significantly less than they are for men. So why is it that people have such a big issue with the prize being the same for a different amount of play at Wimbledon but they don't complain about the other sports where the prize money is unequal?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    In nearly every other sport women playfor exactly the same amount of time but the rewards they get for it are significantly less than they are for men. So why is it that people have such a big issue with the prize being the same for a different amount of play at Wimbledon but they don't complain about the other sports where the prize money is unequal?

    Lets compare football. Mens more popular easily therefore higher pay.
    Basketball same.
    Golf same.
    Cricket same.
    Rugby oh look same.
    Field hockey same
    Baseball same.

    Are we seeing the trend here?

    More people are interested in the male sport because its of higher quality. More interest in that means more money.


    More interest in sport = more money. its all about how much interest there is.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Well some might argue that players should get paid for the amount of entertainment they provide, through the number of sets.. But what happens if someone gets trashed in straight sets, or doesn't play a particularly interesting game?

    I would've preferred 3 sets of Murray's last game over 5 boring sets, any day.

    So women should get paid the same (though their winnings should get halved if they keep bloody screaming)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    In nearly every other sport women playfor exactly the same amount of time but the rewards they get for it are significantly less than they are for men. So why is it that people have such a big issue with the prize being the same for a different amount of play at Wimbledon but they don't complain about the other sports where the prize money is unequal?
    Because less people watch the women's version, so they don't get as much money.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Because less people watch the women's version, so they don't get as much money.
    It should be fewer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malevolent)
    Lets compare football. Mens more popular easily therefore higher pay.
    Basketball same.
    Golf same.
    Cricket same.
    Rugby oh look same.
    Field hockey same
    Baseball same.

    Are we seeing the trend here?

    More people are interested in the male sport because its of higher quality. More interest in that means more money.


    More interest in sport = more money. its all about how much interest there is.
    Yes, I know that. But that's not why most people have a problem with it. They complain that women play less sets than men, so they should get less money. While not giving a **** that the best women in a lot of sports can't even play professionally because there isn't enough money in it. I understand that most people don't want to watch women's sports because it is 'lower quality' or they are sexist but as men's and women's tennis is played in the same competitions interest is similar in men's and women's games is similar.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    In virtually every other sport a woman can play on the men's tour if they want. Even if that isn't officially the case for tennis, it is in principle: the men's tournament is obviously so much better, and if an amazing woman wanted to play on the men's side i'm sure the men would be happy to let her do so.

    This means that it isn't men's sport vs women's - its a mixed allcomers tournament vs a special tournament from which men are excluded. It then seems pretty ludicrous from my perspective that anyone can even suggest that women get paid the same. Just my view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Yes, I know that. But that's not why most people have a problem with it. They complain that women play less sets than men, so they should get less money. While not giving a **** that the best women in a lot of sports can't even play professionally because there isn't enough money in it. I understand that most people don't want to watch women's sports because it is 'lower quality' or they are sexist but as men's and women's tennis is played in the same competitions interest is similar in men's and women's games is similar.
    How is it sexist to not watch women's tennis?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    ignoring money and equality.. I would just really like to see women playing in 5 set matches, - for me it undermines the sport entierly, and would be as patronising as only having women sprinters run 60m
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Because less people watch the women's version, so they don't get as much money.
    Right. So if this is just about economics why do people get so annoyed every year about the injustice of women getting paid the same for less sets?

    (Original post by Kiss)
    How is it sexist to not watch women's tennis?
    It not necessarily sexist, but a lot of people won't watch it because they think it is inferior and isn't as important as the men's games. Which is sexist.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,632

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
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.