Should female tennis players be paid as much as male ones
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ArtGoblin
Yes. What difference does it make?
I really don't know what your argument is.
The fact remains that women's tennis is dreadful and very few people watch it because of that. I really cannot see any reason why the men should have to foot the bill for a sideshow.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by CherylPrincess
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.
I think Serena could beat most men at tennis, but generally be no match for the best professional male tennis players. She's a very good player, but she's only at the top of the womens' game - that's nowhere near the capabilities of men at the top of the mens' game. They just have very different biology.
Original post by ArtGoblin
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.
That's exactly what I meant! Men seem to think they should make more money and get more attention and recognition just because there are 13 yo old boys out there who aren't even in high school yet and could destroy the top woman in every single sport without even breaking a sweat and because men's competitions bring 10 times the income to organizers and federations. It really is very frustrating. It's 2014 and men are still living in the 50's without even considering women should have equal rights.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by CherylPrincess
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.
Have you ever even watched tennis?
She would be lucky to get a single point.
Original post by CherylPrincess
That's exactly what I meant! Men seem to think they should make more money and get more attention and recognition just because there are 13 yo old boys out there who aren't even in high school yet and could destroy the top woman in every single sport without even breaking a sweat. It really is very frustrating.
well.
i could hardly pay for the same wages if i'm unable to draw in the money through viewership.
If the women's tournament brought in 100k from all the income brought in from viewership, advertisement etc while the men brought in 1million, you could hardly expect them to pay them exactly the same. I know it's a gross exaggeration but whatever
Original post by 419
Yes it is an issue because 1) it's not how the world works 2) it is egregiously unfair as these women are significantly overpaid for doing significantly less work. Of all the female sports are there, female tennis players deserve to be paid the least given how pathetic their physical status is and how terrible their matches- which is continuously encouraged by the likes of you championing this gross overpayment.
Like I said, if female deserves to be paid same as men on the share basis that they're paying in same roof, then the juniors, veterans, wheelchairs, doubles etc deserve the same but they're not because people realise that the interest isn't there and the organisers haven't been bullied into it by feminist propagandas.
Like I said, if female deserves to be paid same as men on the share basis that they're paying in same roof, then the juniors, veterans, wheelchairs, doubles etc deserve the same but they're not because people realise that the interest isn't there and the organisers haven't been bullied into it by feminist propagandas.
I don't think you mean they do less work, but that they generate lower output/profit, they perform to a lower standard. In 100m sprinting, women run less fast then men do. That's not necessarily because women work less hard, there are biological factors.
And then you're saying that it would be unfair to pay male and female sports people if one group performs worse than the other. You'll notice that that's a capitalist view on things - pay someone according to the profit they generate. Not that that's a bad thing, just pointing out what it sounds like you're saying. Would you agree?
Original post by bottled
well.
i could hardly pay for the same wages if i'm unable to draw in the money through viewership.
If the women's tournament brought in 100k from all the income brought in from viewership, advertisement etc while the men brought in 1million, you could hardly expect them to pay them exactly the same. I know it's a gross exaggeration but whatever
i could hardly pay for the same wages if i'm unable to draw in the money through viewership.
If the women's tournament brought in 100k from all the income brought in from viewership, advertisement etc while the men brought in 1million, you could hardly expect them to pay them exactly the same. I know it's a gross exaggeration but whatever
So you don't want equality? Go back to 1950
Original post by Pride
I don't think you mean they do less work
But, they do do less work. In Grand Slams the women play their matches as best of 3 sets. The men play best of 5. The men are playing harder and longer. That is a simple quantifiable fact.
It's also worth noting that because the women's game is less draining most women players - including those within the top 10 - are able to take part in not only the Single's competition, but the doubles and/or the mixed doubles, greatly enhancing their earning potential. The top men do not have that option, they physically cannot fit more games into their schedule.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Pride
I don't think you mean they do less work, but that they generate lower output/profit, they perform to a lower standard. In 100m sprinting, women run less fast then men do. That's not necessarily because women work less hard, there are biological factors.
And then you're saying that it would be unfair to pay male and female sports people if one group performs worse than the other. You'll notice that that's a capitalist view on things - pay someone according to the profit they generate. Not that that's a bad thing, just pointing out what it sounds like you're saying. Would you agree?
And then you're saying that it would be unfair to pay male and female sports people if one group performs worse than the other. You'll notice that that's a capitalist view on things - pay someone according to the profit they generate. Not that that's a bad thing, just pointing out what it sounds like you're saying. Would you agree?
I was talking about tennis female players doing less work in that context. They do less work in terms of tennis metrics- play less sets and play at a lower level. Just look at their physical status.
And yes I agree. That was part of the wider point of my post.
Original post by CherylPrincess
So you don't want equality? Go back to 1950
Overpaying just so that you get equal payment =/= equality.
Yes they should be paid the same. You can't blame the women players that work just as hard as men when they train but aren't allowed to play as many sets. It's not the women's fault for the failure of the average joe (many of them in this thread) to enjoy women sports in general because they're inherently misogynistic.
#CorruptSports.
#CorruptSports.
Original post by Pride
I don't think you mean they do less work, but that they generate lower output/profit, they perform to a lower standard. In 100m sprinting, women run less fast then men do. That's not necessarily because women work less hard, there are biological factors.
And then you're saying that it would be unfair to pay male and female sports people if one group performs worse than the other. You'll notice that that's a capitalist view on things - pay someone according to the profit they generate. Not that that's a bad thing, just pointing out what it sounds like you're saying. Would you agree?
And then you're saying that it would be unfair to pay male and female sports people if one group performs worse than the other. You'll notice that that's a capitalist view on things - pay someone according to the profit they generate. Not that that's a bad thing, just pointing out what it sounds like you're saying. Would you agree?
If you prefer socialism, that's fine, but I don't think you should impose it just on one industry. If you support socialism, you must change the whole of society, not just women's tennis. Therefore since we live in a capitalist society, it is reasonable that tennis income is determined based on capitalist principles, until society as a whole becomes communist... I mean socialist.
Original post by Armin.
It's not the women's fault for the failure of the average joe (many of them in this thread) to enjoy women sports in general because they're inherently misogynistic.
BS.
It has nothing to do with them being women. It has everything to do with their game not being as much of a spectacle and therefore not being as interesting.
Lower leagues of football are not as interesting to watch as the highest professional leagues because the skill level is much lower and consequently the game is a lot poorer. And that's comparing men with men. No sexism at play there.
We already know from your other thread you simply don't like sports. Foisting your opinion onto something and presenting it as fact is sheer stupidity of the highest order.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by CherylPrincess
So you don't want equality? Go back to 1950
No we don't want equality, we want fairness. (For example, equality derives from the word equal, which means everyone should get equal benefits - regardless of their contribution. So a lazy gamer should get the same as a doctor who works 50 hours a week). Clearly people should be rewarded based on the contribution they make to society, this is fairness.
Now given men who play tennis provide more value to society than women who play tennis, men should receive a greater reward then women.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
BS.
It has nothing to do with them being women. It has everything to do with their game not being as much of a spectacle and therefore not being as interesting.
It has nothing to do with them being women. It has everything to do with their game not being as much of a spectacle and therefore not being as interesting.
What do they not do that their male counterparts apparently do so well?
Don't kid yourself if they were playing topless they'd gain more popularity.
Lower leagues of football are not as interesting to watch as the highest professional leagues because the skill level is much lower and consequently the game is a lot poorer. And that's comparing men with men. No sexism at play there.
You can't compare them to a different league of football because they're at the top of their gender just like prof. clubs.
Just look at how the interest in female prof. football is lower than that of the male one. You're pretty delusional.
They're not playing worse, they're playing at the very top level of their gender so they should be paid the same.
We already know from your other thread you you simply don't like sports. Foisting your opinion onto something and presenting it as fact is sheer stupidity of the highest order
I like sport. I dislike blatant misogyny however, that and putting my entertainment above other people's lives.
Original post by Armin.
What do they not do that their male counterparts apparently do so well?
Don't kid yourself if they were playing topless they'd gain more popularity.
Don't kid yourself if they were playing topless they'd gain more popularity.
Possibly, but that would increase the spectacle, increase the viewers and bring more money in, meaning a greater spread of the money was perfectly justified.
As it stands, the women's game is slower (both in rate of play and in terms of how fast they are capable of hitting the ball) and it is less physical (as evidenced by the fewer games being played).
These factors mean the game does not compare to the Mens'.
You can't compare them to a different league of football because they're at the top of their gender just like prof. clubs.
Just look at how the interest in female prof. football is lower than that of the male one. You're pretty delusional.
Just look at how the interest in female prof. football is lower than that of the male one. You're pretty delusional.
I'm delusional? You just proved my point. The men's game is more skillful, faster, more interesting, more diverse and in pretty much every way quantifiably better than the women's game. Hence the greater interest and greater money.
For the record, it wasn't always the case. The women's game was hugely popular both during and after WW2, indeed, the FA had to manufacture reasons to put the men's game back on top, so this has nothing to do with misogyny that you so readily rail against for no reason.
They're not playing worse, they're playing at the very top level of their gender so they should be paid the same.
So you're suggesting that the best 11 year olds also get paid the same? After all, they're performing the best they can for their age?
It is not about how well they perform, it is about how well they are able to gain revenue. It's simple capitalism.
I like sport. I dislike blatant misogyny however, that and putting my entertainment above other people's lives.
Perhaps you do like it. But you don't know a thing about it.
Female tennis tournaments are less interesting because you're not watching the best players in the world, you're watching the best female players in the world—and there's rather a large skill gap! I honestly don't think it's unfair in the least as the male tournaments bring in a far greater crowd, therefore their higher pay is justified.
Original post by Armin.
What do they not do that their male counterparts apparently do so well?
Don't kid yourself if they were playing topless they'd gain more popularity.
You can't compare them to a different league of football because they're at the top of their gender just like prof. clubs.
Just look at how the interest in female prof. football is lower than that of the male one. You're pretty delusional.
They're not playing worse, they're playing at the very top level of their gender so they should be paid the same.
I like sport. I dislike blatant misogyny however, that and putting my entertainment above other people's lives.
Don't kid yourself if they were playing topless they'd gain more popularity.
You can't compare them to a different league of football because they're at the top of their gender just like prof. clubs.
Just look at how the interest in female prof. football is lower than that of the male one. You're pretty delusional.
They're not playing worse, they're playing at the very top level of their gender so they should be paid the same.
I like sport. I dislike blatant misogyny however, that and putting my entertainment above other people's lives.
So, so wrong. Just because they are at the top of their gender, doesn't mean they are any good. The best female tennis players are poor compared to most males - Venus Williams played a pretty crap male player a few years ago and lost badly.
It's not misogyny to say that women's sport is largely extremely boring compared to the male equivalent. The lack of interest in women's football is because of the standard - I watched the England women's team play earlier this year and the quality was laughable; I could have made it into that team without any practice.
No they shouldn't be given equal pay for doing less work.
No she couldn't. She would get obliterated by Nadal, or pretty much any of the top male tennis players.
She dominates in women's tennis mostly because of her power. Obviously she is a good all round player but if she couldn't smash the ball so hard it'd be much more matched.
If you look at her fastest serve (129 mph, which is the second fastest ever recorded by a woman after her sister's 130) and compare it to the top serve recorded by a man (Samuel Groth 163 mph), or even Andy Murray's best serve (145 mph) it's obvious that her main weapon would be completely gone. 129 mph is basically average for a man. Wikipedia's ranking only goes to thirty-eight places, but even those serves are 140 mph.
Serena Williams would get destroyed in men's tennis, but I would like to see her join just to put an end to this nonsense.
Original post by CherylPrincess
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.
No she couldn't. She would get obliterated by Nadal, or pretty much any of the top male tennis players.
She dominates in women's tennis mostly because of her power. Obviously she is a good all round player but if she couldn't smash the ball so hard it'd be much more matched.
If you look at her fastest serve (129 mph, which is the second fastest ever recorded by a woman after her sister's 130) and compare it to the top serve recorded by a man (Samuel Groth 163 mph), or even Andy Murray's best serve (145 mph) it's obvious that her main weapon would be completely gone. 129 mph is basically average for a man. Wikipedia's ranking only goes to thirty-eight places, but even those serves are 140 mph.
Serena Williams would get destroyed in men's tennis, but I would like to see her join just to put an end to this nonsense.
Original post by Trouty97
Please not the I am mainly talking about the 4 grand slam events because men have to play 5 sets rather than 3, so should be paid more. Also, add to that the fact that main popularity of tennis is the male tour, and that the women's tour is more of a side note, so the men are more valuable to the organisers anyway.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Women should be paid less obviously they play best of 3 and men best of 5
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- TSR Tennis Society IV
- is it possible to grow at 17
- Footballers aren't overpaid
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
- What is your favorite sport to watch and play?
- UCAT Medentry DM Question
- need help with something
- Ratios
- What's your age and body count?
- CCCU Weekly Anagram #9
- Anyone watch tennis?
- A question for straight men
- If you could choose your gender, what would you be?
- Tenancy Takeover - Glassworks, Leicester - FREE TO XMAS
- NHS trust says transgender milk just as good for babies as normal milk
- Please answer this short questionnaire!
- Girls boxing, your views
- getting a kitten - help!!
- CCCU Weekly Anagram #11
- getting work experience at pharmacy as male pharmacy student?
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Predicted Paper 1 English Literature 2024 GCSELast reply 3 minutes ago
Dissertation online survey - celebrity, body image and social mediaLast reply 16 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 18 minutes ago
I’m not sure what to do to stand out when applying for university.Last reply 19 minutes ago
My boyfriend left me because he said my breasts and butt were too smallLast reply 25 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 26 minutes ago
Will an IVA cause my Civil Service pre employment check to fail?Last reply 29 minutes ago
CLEARING???: KCL, QMUOL, ST Andrews, BATH , ROYAL HOLLOWAYLast reply 41 minutes ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (1ET0 01) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 44 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
How I get an A in A-Level Business Studies
