the Wimbledon tennis final
Just before it fades out, that was a gruelling and epic 5 hours of tennis over 5 sets. Women will play a minimum two sets and no more than three, men face three and five comparatively.
Should men get a bit more money, considering they have to work longer hours? Or would that be a 'burning injustice' to our PM too?
Should men get a bit more money, considering they have to work longer hours? Or would that be a 'burning injustice' to our PM too?
Scroll to see replies
Grand slam prize money is not a function of how much work is undertaken, but of the money gathered by that organisation in sponsorship and ticket sales.
The main draw for both of those being high is the fact that the men's and women's (as well as men's doubles, women's doubles, and mixed doubles, not to mention various age group tournaments and, in Wimbledon's case, wheelchair tournaments) all happen simultaneously.
Yes. I'm lots of fun at parties.
The main draw for both of those being high is the fact that the men's and women's (as well as men's doubles, women's doubles, and mixed doubles, not to mention various age group tournaments and, in Wimbledon's case, wheelchair tournaments) all happen simultaneously.
Yes. I'm lots of fun at parties.
Original post by z-hog
Just before it fades out, that was a gruelling and epic 5 hours of tennis over 5 sets. Women will play a minimum two sets and no more than three, men face three and five comparatively.
Should men get a bit more money, considering they have to work longer hours? Or would that be a 'burning injustice' to our PM too?
Should men get a bit more money, considering they have to work longer hours? Or would that be a 'burning injustice' to our PM too?
No.
Original post by Drewski
Grand slam prize money is not a function of how much work is undertaken, but of the money gathered by that organisation in sponsorship and ticket sales.
Well, is there much of an exclusivity between the two? What's mentioned above, isn't that proportionate to the work put out on court? How much of it is undertaken is always the stepping stone, it is a matter of fact to state that men have to play many more hours than women for the same money at Wimbledon. Advertisers had 5 hours of exposure with the men's final against 56 minutes in the women's, that has to be worth different money too. Even tickets in the black-market have different rates to express some form of difference somewhere.
Do you think the 'old ways' when sponsorship and ticket sales money were apportioned differently were a demonstration of sexism then? How about cutting the number of sets for men, to equalise that with women, why don't they do that at Wimbledon to go the whole hog on the equality ethos? Put their money where their mouth is...
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
Grand slam prize money is not a function of how much work is undertaken, but of the money gathered by that organisation in sponsorship and ticket sales.
The main draw for both of those being high is the fact that the men's and women's (as well as men's doubles, women's doubles, and mixed doubles, not to mention various age group tournaments and, in Wimbledon's case, wheelchair tournaments) all happen simultaneously.
Yes. I'm lots of fun at parties.
The main draw for both of those being high is the fact that the men's and women's (as well as men's doubles, women's doubles, and mixed doubles, not to mention various age group tournaments and, in Wimbledon's case, wheelchair tournaments) all happen simultaneously.
Yes. I'm lots of fun at parties.
But doubles players get less prize money than singles players.
The men's singles competition is clearly responsible for bringing in more revenue than the women's singles.
The female tennis players just leech off the popularity of the men's game. If women's slams were held separately from the men's slams, they'd earn far less prize money because far less revenue would be generated.
Original post by z-hog
Well, is there much of an exclusivity between the two? What's mentioned above, isn't that proportionate to the work put out on court? How much of it is undertaken is always the stepping stone, it is a matter of fact to state that men have to play many more hours than women for the same money at Wimbledon. Advertisers had 5 hours of exposure with the men's final against 56 minutes in the women's, that has to be worth different money too. Even tickets in the black-market have different rates to express some form of difference somewhere.
Do you think the 'old ways' when sponsorship and ticket sales money were apportioned differently were a demonstration of sexism then? How about cutting the number of sets for men, to equalise that with women, why don't they do that at Wimbledon to go the whole hog on the equality ethos? Put their money where their mouth is...
Do you think the 'old ways' when sponsorship and ticket sales money were apportioned differently were a demonstration of sexism then? How about cutting the number of sets for men, to equalise that with women, why don't they do that at Wimbledon to go the whole hog on the equality ethos? Put their money where their mouth is...
Original post by Chief Wiggum
But doubles players get less prize money than singles players.
The men's singles competition is clearly responsible for bringing in more revenue than the women's singles.
The female tennis players just leech off the popularity of the men's game. If women's slams were held separately from the men's slams, they'd earn far less prize money because far less revenue would be generated.
The men's singles competition is clearly responsible for bringing in more revenue than the women's singles.
The female tennis players just leech off the popularity of the men's game. If women's slams were held separately from the men's slams, they'd earn far less prize money because far less revenue would be generated.
In 2018, 4. 6 million viewers watched the women's final, compared to 4.5 million viewers for the men's final.
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/faq_and_facts_and_figures.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/957267/wimbledon-championships-broadacast-viewing-figures/
Bit ridiculous to accuse the women's game of leaching off the men's when in some years it gets higher viewing figures.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
In 2018, 4. 6 million viewers watched the women's final, compared to 4.5 million viewers for the men's final.
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/faq_and_facts_and_figures.html
Bit ridiculous to accuse the women's game of leaching off the men's when in some years it gets higher viewing figures.
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/faq_and_facts_and_figures.html
Bit ridiculous to accuse the women's game of leaching off the men's when in some years it gets higher viewing figures.
That’s a slightly different situation. Last year the women’s final directly followed the Nadal V Djockovic semi final that was held back. One would imagine a decent number of those viewers just switch off,
Original post by Andrew97
That’s a slightly different situation. Last year the women’s final directly followed the Nadal V Djockovic semi final that was held back. One would imagine a decent number of those viewers just switch off,
That's just sheer speculation, unless you have any objective evidence of that.
But the point stands that the women's game attracts a lot of viewers, is popular and only last year had more viewers than the men's final. Yet people talk of the women's game like no one watches it. Prize money isn't decided on the length of the games. You get no more money for winning in 5 sets than you do for winning via a bye.
Of all the things to be annoyed about in the world, the fact that women tennis players get parity of pay with male players seems a rather ridiculous thing to focus on.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
That's just sheer speculation, unless you have any objective evidence of that.
While we await this year's figures for an update, let me tell you that I wouldn't regard any figures put out by the BBC as 'objective evidence' of anything. On women-related issues? They don't do journalism anymore, only political bidding.
I believe they should ask Women to play 5 sets imo. If you say Women and Men get paid the same, whilst men play 5 set games and women play 3 set games. Replace the word sets with hours. Women and Men get paid the same whilst Men work 5 hours and Women work 3 hours. Doesn't seem fair to me. I believe Men and Women should get paid the same if they work the same amount.
Original post by z-hog
While we await this year's figures for an update, let me tell you that I wouldn't regard any figures put out by the BBC as 'objective evidence' of anything. On women-related issues? They don't do journalism anymore, only political bidding.
Oh ffs, get over yourself.
The figures weren't from the BBC, they were from Wimbledon themselves. Had you bothered to look, your have seen that. Everything is just a conspiracy to you. Whenever facts prove you wrong, you claim it's a conspiracy.
Again, for your own sake, I hope you're a parody account.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by jc933
I believe they should ask Women to play 5 sets imo. If you say Women and Men get paid the same, whilst men play 5 set games and women play 3 set games. Replace the word sets with hours. Women and Men get paid the same whilst Men work 5 hours and Women work 3 hours. Doesn't seem fair to me. I believe Men and Women should get paid the same if they work the same amount.
To add even more context, the women’s final this year was over in under an hour but the men’s final was over in 5 hours.
I’m all for the prize money being equal, but I think it’s entirely reasonable that we ask women to start playing a 5 set maximum as opposed to 3. I would say it’s incredibly sexist and outdated to suggest that women aren’t strong enough to play 5 sets. Of course, however, female tennis players won’t campaign to play 5 sets, because why would they want to increase their workload on an already very busy grand slam tour when it doesn’t benefit them in any way? It also doesn’t benefit the WTA in any way to extend the length of matches, so there’s a vested interest in maintaining the sexist status quo.
Original post by DSilva
In 2018, 4. 6 million viewers watched the women's final, compared to 4.5 million viewers for the men's final.
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/faq_and_facts_and_figures.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/957267/wimbledon-championships-broadacast-viewing-figures/
Bit ridiculous to accuse the women's game of leaching off the men's when in some years it gets higher viewing figures.
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/atoz/faq_and_facts_and_figures.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/957267/wimbledon-championships-broadacast-viewing-figures/
Bit ridiculous to accuse the women's game of leaching off the men's when in some years it gets higher viewing figures.
I could be wrong, but didn’t the World Cup final air at the same time as the men’s final, thus skewing those kinds of statistics?
Original post by DSilva
Oh ffs, get over yourself.
The figures weren't from the BBC, they were from Wimbledon themselves. Had you bothered to look, your have seen that. Everything is just a conspiracy to you. Whenever facts prove you wrong, you claim it's a conspiracy.
Again, for your own sake, I hope you're a parody account.
The figures weren't from the BBC, they were from Wimbledon themselves. Had you bothered to look, your have seen that. Everything is just a conspiracy to you. Whenever facts prove you wrong, you claim it's a conspiracy.
Again, for your own sake, I hope you're a parody account.
You're too gullible and naive for me to spend time on, that's the problem with so many people incapable of thinking by themselves. Whatever importance you want to attach to those figures... it's *******s. The *******s they imprint on the head of mindless people.
Original post by Everglow
To add even more context, the women’s final this year was over in under an hour but the men’s final was over in 5 hours.
I’m all for the prize money being equal, but I think it’s entirely reasonable that we ask women to start playing a 5 set maximum as opposed to 3. I would say it’s incredibly sexist and outdated to suggest that women aren’t strong enough to play 5 sets. Of course, however, female tennis players won’t campaign to play 5 sets, because why would they want to increase their workload on an already very busy grand slam tour when it doesn’t benefit them in any way? It also doesn’t benefit the WTA in any way to extend the length of matches, so there’s a vested interest in maintaining the sexist status quo.
I could be wrong, but didn’t the World Cup final air at the same time as the men’s final, thus skewing those kinds of statistics?
I’m all for the prize money being equal, but I think it’s entirely reasonable that we ask women to start playing a 5 set maximum as opposed to 3. I would say it’s incredibly sexist and outdated to suggest that women aren’t strong enough to play 5 sets. Of course, however, female tennis players won’t campaign to play 5 sets, because why would they want to increase their workload on an already very busy grand slam tour when it doesn’t benefit them in any way? It also doesn’t benefit the WTA in any way to extend the length of matches, so there’s a vested interest in maintaining the sexist status quo.
I could be wrong, but didn’t the World Cup final air at the same time as the men’s final, thus skewing those kinds of statistics?
Maybe. Although it might have been later in the day. The British Grand Prix was airing (and started) at the same time as well, further skewing gjr figures. Plus as I mentioned the women’s final directly followed the Nadal V Djockovic semi final
Original post by z-hog
You're too gullible and naive for me to spend time on, that's the problem with so many people incapable of thinking by themselves. Whatever importance you want to attach to those figures... it's *******s. The *******s they imprint on the head of mindless people.
So you're saying, without a shred if evidence, that the BBC invented the viewing figures of the 2018 Wimbledon final, for political reasons?
Do you realise how ridiculous you sound? Like, seriously?
There's no point in discussing anything with you. Every time someone presents evidence that counters your position, you allege a conspiracy.
Original post by Everglow
To add even more context, the women’s final this year was over in under an hour but the men’s final was over in 5 hours.
I’m all for the prize money being equal, but I think it’s entirely reasonable that we ask women to start playing a 5 set maximum as opposed to 3. I would say it’s incredibly sexist and outdated to suggest that women aren’t strong enough to play 5 sets. Of course, however, female tennis players won’t campaign to play 5 sets, because why would they want to increase their workload on an already very busy grand slam tour when it doesn’t benefit them in any way? It also doesn’t benefit the WTA in any way to extend the length of matches, so there’s a vested interest in maintaining the sexist status quo.
I could be wrong, but didn’t the World Cup final air at the same time as the men’s final, thus skewing those kinds of statistics?
I’m all for the prize money being equal, but I think it’s entirely reasonable that we ask women to start playing a 5 set maximum as opposed to 3. I would say it’s incredibly sexist and outdated to suggest that women aren’t strong enough to play 5 sets. Of course, however, female tennis players won’t campaign to play 5 sets, because why would they want to increase their workload on an already very busy grand slam tour when it doesn’t benefit them in any way? It also doesn’t benefit the WTA in any way to extend the length of matches, so there’s a vested interest in maintaining the sexist status quo.
I could be wrong, but didn’t the World Cup final air at the same time as the men’s final, thus skewing those kinds of statistics?
It's really baffling to me that of all the things to get annoyed about in the world, people choose to get annoyed about women's tennis players getting parity of pay with male tennis players.
The length of the games is not determinative of prize money. You get no more money for winning in 5 long sets than you do for winning three sets 6-0.
Both the women's and the men's games are popular, watched by millions. You get a fortune for being succesful in tennis regardless of gender. Why can't people just accept that?
The Wimbledon final started at 2PM. The World Cup final kicked of at 4PM. The tennis was a relatively short game too.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Andrew97
Maybe. Although it might have been later in the day. The British Grand Prix was airing (and started) at the same time as well, further skewing gjr figures. Plus as I mentioned the women’s final directly followed the Nadal V Djockovic semi final
Unless you have any evidence that a huge number of people turned off within the first few minutes after realising it was no longer Djokovic V Nadal, your point is mere speculation.
Why is it so difficult to accept that people want to watch women's tennis?
The argument about men playing longer matches is a silly one and it would be like saying golfers should earn less than tennis players because they don’t exert themselves as much. That’s not how economics works.
Women’s singles matches at grand slams are very popular but probably a bit less popular than men’s singles matches. So yes men should be paid a bit more based on this. But what’s the harm in paying them both the same? It’s a good message for equality and top women’s matches can fill centre court so there’s not a clear difference in popularity.
So to the people who don’t agree with equal pay at grand slams, why do you care?
Women’s singles matches at grand slams are very popular but probably a bit less popular than men’s singles matches. So yes men should be paid a bit more based on this. But what’s the harm in paying them both the same? It’s a good message for equality and top women’s matches can fill centre court so there’s not a clear difference in popularity.
So to the people who don’t agree with equal pay at grand slams, why do you care?
Isn't it obvious that the men's singles is the main competition, with a lot of people hanging around for other stuff just because it's there? Put them in direct competition and we'd see viewers for women's drop (as opposed to just being lower compared to the men's), simply because it's a higher standard. There's another factor of the matches being different lengths and spectators' preferences of wanting to sit for 4 hours or just 2 (as well as it preventing male players from entering as many competitions, a further detriment to men).
I don't think it's feasible to withhold prize money until viewing figures are released. I do think the women's game should be extending to 5 sets (to reward ability over luck) or the men's reduced to 3 sets (so there's more excitement and variety), but I'd favour the former for the prestige of a Grand Slam.
I don't think it's feasible to withhold prize money until viewing figures are released. I do think the women's game should be extending to 5 sets (to reward ability over luck) or the men's reduced to 3 sets (so there's more excitement and variety), but I'd favour the former for the prestige of a Grand Slam.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Latest widget moves to next 'page' too readily.Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University of Bristol Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 6 minutes ago
Manchester computer science foundation year academic assessmentLast reply 15 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 15 minutes ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
which unis might accept my unmoderated results?Last reply 20 minutes ago
Turner and Townsend Degree Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 20 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 22 minutes ago
Master's loan eligibility after studying abroadLast reply 23 minutes ago
Google level 4 software development apprenticeshipTrending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 22 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 22 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
