Should female tennis players be paid as much as male ones

Plus Bolt is probably the most famous track athlete in the world. I doubt he could name any other track gold medalists unless they are British.

I am tired of women's achievements not being acknowledged simply because of their sex organs. Not just is sports but in general. The men's chess champion is very famous , can make millions from his wins and is often mentioned in the media but nobody ever mentions the female world champion and their prizes are only a tiny fraction. Is she not a world champion too? Why do only men get the spotlight and recognition?

I am tired of women's achievements not being acknowledged simply because of their sex organs. Not just is sports but in general. The men's chess champion is very famous , can make millions from his wins and is often mentioned in the media but nobody ever mentions the female world champion and their prizes are only a tiny fraction. Is she not a world champion too? Why do only men get the spotlight and recognition?

Not quite. Female football players play in completely different competitions than male footballs whereas tennis players share some of the same competitions. Female tennis players are awarded less for women only tournaments - it is only where there are two competitions in the same tournaments where they are ever awarded the same.

I am tired of women's achievements not being acknowledged simply because of their sex organs. Not just is sports but in general. The men's chess champion is very famous , can make millions from his wins and is often mentioned in the media but nobody ever mentions the female world champion and their prizes are only a tiny fraction. Is she not a world champion too? Why do only men get the spotlight and recognition?

I wasn't just talking about British sprinters but for example everyone knows who Mo Farah is in the UK because he's a successful British athletic. What exactly am I deluding myself about?

There are two schools of thought. (1) People should be paid for the amount of work they do, and (2) people should should be paid for the value of the work they do.

So from the first school of thought, men should be paid more for doing more work.

From the second school of thought, men should be paid more because they attract a larger audience and consequently more tournament sponsors, and consequently bring more money to the game then women do, and therefore a greater proportion of the generated revenue should go towards the men.

But they're not being paid in the traditional way. Tennis players get a prize depending on how well they do in the competition. I know that women's tennis only gets so much attention because their games are played in same competitions as men but they already make significantly less money than men so I don't think it is unfair to men that they get an equal amount in a couple of competitions. After all, the only reason men get so much more than women is because they are men.

What point are you trying to make? Say that I do only know the popular names because they're more successful. Don't they deserve to be rewarded for gathering a high level of interest in their events. Why should someone else who fails to gather same amount of interest reap in the reward and deserve equal paying? Supply and demands dominates the world.

Your delusion is saying that men and women deserve equal pay in same events. If so, then the juniors do, the doubles do, the wheelchair tennis do etc etc etc.


Posted from TSR Mobile

After all, the only reason men get so much more than women is because they are men.

Of course! Women work just as hard as men! And it's not their fault that they aren't allowed in the male competition, I bet Serena could show Nadal a thing or two.

But they're not being paid in the traditional way. Tennis players get a prize depending on how well they do in the competition. I know that women's tennis only gets so much attention because their games are played in same competitions as men but they already make significantly less money than men so I don't think it is unfair to men that they get an equal amount in a couple of competitions. After all, the only reason men get so much more than women is because they are men.

If they play naked im all for it

I would love to see you justify that statement.

You know that prize money at the grand slams has steadily increased I.e. in line with increased sponsorship and tv money. This isn't some absolute prize were talking about.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm going to disappoint you I'm afraid - it is only because men are generally bigger, faster, able to push their bodies for longer and harder etc. But it doesn't change the fact that men only get so much attention because they are men. Personally though I don't see the difference in men and women's performances - if they are competing against the same sex anyway it doesn't matter how much better the other sex are. I know there are people who watch sport to see the 'technique' and 'skill' of the players but I'm not the only person who finds that boring.

But they're not being paid in the traditional way. Tennis players get a prize depending on how well they do in the competition. I know that women's tennis only gets so much attention because their games are played in same competitions as men but they already make significantly less money than men so I don't think it is unfair to men that they get an equal amount in a couple of competitions. After all, the only reason men get so much more than women is because they are men.

The point was just because she couldn't name the female 100m gold medalist doesn't mean there is significantly less interest in women's athletics. Bolt is the most famous athlete so it wasn't a fair comparison.

I have never said men and women deserve equal pay in the same events. I'm saying that it isn't an issue that they get the same pay at a couple of events.