Equal Prize Money Debate - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 03:42 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,164
                     
Equal Prize Money Debate

hey wtaworlders...i'm planning to write a college senior thesis on the equal prize money debate at the grand slams, but my advisor seems to think i might not be able to find enough data to use to write a paper with enough significance...my plan is to make a list of all the ways you could compare whether men and women deserve equal pay (whether or not they support women) and then also figure out which of the categories i could find solid data for and which would be more difficult, thanks all!!

i'll start...
television ratings (probably can find this data for many developed countries)
quality of matches (can find winners/errors and scorelines for GS matches)
time on court (can find this)
ticket sales (prob can find this...maybe also use data from uncombined tournaments as well to show popularity of each tour independently)

ok, if you can add to this list i'd love the help please!! need to have a solid list in by the end of the week...also if anyone has full articles about why the french converted to equal pay (or even why australia or the us open did) that could really help as well

thanks

It will always be Arantxa, hall of famer! and martina hingis and kim clijsters - amazing legends
ana ivanovic and the italian girls, especially pennetta (forza azzurre! RG CHAMP FRANCESCA AND FINALIST SARA!)
aga, vika, sam, na in the next tier
NEVER say "I don't care who wins, I just want good tennis"
FaceyFacem is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Helen Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for Shirley
Posts: 19,293
                     
This isn't scientific, but watch the Federer/Hewitt semi and then the Agassi/the other guy semi. Then watch Mary/Lena D and Kim/Sharapova, and convince me that Lena D and Sharapova deserve the same dough as Lleyton Hewitt.

Whitney Houston and her receipts:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...17447&page=324
Helen Lawson is offline  
post #3 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 03:46 PM
Senior Member
 
marmite1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,467
                     
I say they deserve the same amount. Although men play for longer, im speculating, that the men and the women exert about the same energy because women (possibly) cant last as long on court. Or make the prize money equal, and make men's matches shorter or women's longer.

Amelie Mauresmo - Aus Open and Wimbledon Champion 06
marmite1 is offline  
post #4 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 03:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,980
                     
While a supporter of equal pay for equal work no matter what kind of work it is, it is hard for me to support equal prize money in tennis at the slams. The women don't play as long and nobody in their right mind these days can say they play higher quality tennis. Where it not for political correctness, this whole topic would be a non starter.

And the argument that the women attract more attention is hypocritical. Her critics constantly bad mouthed Anna Kournikova for not playing well enough to win tournaments, yet she got more attention than anybody in the sport. So, should she have gotten more prize money in the tournaments she played, because she increased TV ratings or sat fans in the stands?

You can't have it both ways. Either prize money is based on merit or it isn't. And equal prize money for women at the slams is NOT based on merit.
TonyP is offline  
post #5 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 22,066
                     
It's going to be tough to prove either way as the only relevant statistics you can find (tracked separately for men and women) is time on court. You can argue that the longer players spend on court, the more commercials are being viewed by TV audience.

TV ratings - will be very tough to find information from a lot of markets, especially the biggest ones like China and India.

Quality is irrelevant imo as it is not subjective

ticket sales is irrelevant as GSs are combined events, so you wouldn't know who the audience actually comes to watch mens or womens matches


anyway, good luck if you take on this assignment

Vassilissa is my girl............
tenn_ace is offline  
post #6 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Colombia
Posts: 4,602
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen Lawson
This isn't scientific, but watch the Federer/Hewitt semi and then the Agassi/the other guy semi. Then watch Mary/Lena D and Kim/Sharapova, and convince me that Lena D and Sharapova deserve the same dough as Lleyton Hewitt.
Well, there are some JesusFed's spankings that are incredibly boring

Maria Sharapova
alfonsojose is offline  
post #7 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Senior Member
 
moby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 14,403
                     
What about time spent training, and expenses incurred (coaching, travelling, lodging)?
I mean, it's not like the women are actually lounging around while the men practise.

On a more serious note, only Wimbledon hasn't converted to equal prize money, so doesn't that mean that once they officially convert, there wouldn't be such a debate anymore?

A single flow'r he sent me, since we met./All tenderly his messenger he chose;
Deep-hearted, pure, with scented dew still wet - One perfect rose.
I knew the language of the floweret;/'My fragile leaves,' it said, 'his heart enclose.'
Love long has taken for his amulet/One perfect rose.
Why is it no one ever sent me yet/One perfect limousine, do you suppose?
Ah no, it's always just my luck to get/One perfect rose.
moby is offline  
post #8 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 04:16 PM
Senior Member
 
marmite1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,467
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by moby
What about time spent training, and expenses incurred (coaching, travelling, lodging)?
I mean, it's not like the women are actually lounging around while the men practise.

On a more serious note, only Wimbledon hasn't converted to equal prize money, so doesn't that mean that once they officially convert, there wouldn't be such a debate anymore?
The men will probably moan for a while, and then the debate will be forgotten.

Amelie Mauresmo - Aus Open and Wimbledon Champion 06
marmite1 is offline  
post #9 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,898
                     
try to avoid political correctness and give an unbiased view. Politically correct papers are usually boring and have low information value.

An interesting question to explore is why prize money at the 4 Grand Slams is roughly equal, but on the regular tours, men's prize money is something like 3 times more than women's. If you can shed some light on that question then you will not only get an "A" but you'll also be making a real contribution to the study of sex-equality economics.
vogus is offline  
post #10 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,980
                     
I'll give it a try. They are two different tours with different sponsors. The sponsors on the men's tour are apparently willing to put up more money than those sponsoring the women's tour.

In some cases, TV revenues may figure in, but in the US, it is widely believed that aside from the tennis channel, ESPN is pretty much the only network carrying non grand slam tennis and it is doing so on a barter or trade out system. IN other words, it is NOT paying out big bucks to carry tennis matches, because they don't draw large enough audiences to interest ESPN, compared to basketball and the other sports it carries.
TonyP is offline  
post #11 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 04:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Helen Lawson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for Shirley
Posts: 19,293
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfonsojose
Well, there are some JesusFed's spankings that are incredibly boring
That's true, absolutely, but I was watching the Hewitt/Federer semi, and thought, Lleyton and Lena D get the same money?!?! I adore Lena D, she's one of my favorites, but I can't watch Lleyton Hewitt and think they both earned the same money, that's all.

Whitney Houston and her receipts:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showthrea...17447&page=324
Helen Lawson is offline  
post #12 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 04:32 PM
Senior Member
 
creep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: R.I.P Ethel
Posts: 3,589
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen Lawson
This isn't scientific, but watch the Federer/Hewitt semi and then the Agassi/the other guy semi. Then watch Mary/Lena D and Kim/Sharapova, and convince me that Lena D and Sharapova deserve the same dough as Lleyton Hewitt.
They don't deserve to be sharing the same court, never mind getting paid the same!
creep is offline  
post #13 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 04:50 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,164
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by vogus
try to avoid political correctness and give an unbiased view. Politically correct papers are usually boring and have low information value.

An interesting question to explore is why prize money at the 4 Grand Slams is roughly equal, but on the regular tours, men's prize money is something like 3 times more than women's. If you can shed some light on that question then you will not only get an "A" but you'll also be making a real contribution to the study of sex-equality economics.
my goal is to come in to the process of writing w/o an opinion on whether or not they deserve equal...which is sort of possible since i'm a fan of both women's and men's tennis and really can see the debate from both ends...i'm just looking here to get more possible stats that i can use to do an econometric analysis of whether or not this is possible...

i'm currently in a sports economics seminar and i'm trying to apply concepts from the class to try and resolve this problem, unfortunately in the US we focus mainly on the 4 big team sports (basketball, hockey, baseball, football) and then also soccer because my professor is a founding member of the MLS here in the USA...we discussed shortly reasons why players would earn money...or more specifically why people would pay to be a spectator: namely, quality of games, uncertainty of outcome (which i guess i could try and show through number of upsets on the tours), and having their favorite win...in an individual sport that becomes more problematic obviously...

anyway, keep sending me ideas if you can about things i could use to try and build a solid statistical case, however, if this doesn't work out i'm probably gonna write a paper about the US Open series and whether or not there are significant economic benefits to their collusion...or maybe some other tennis topic you can also suggest (again, its an econ class, so it would have to have econ implications)

It will always be Arantxa, hall of famer! and martina hingis and kim clijsters - amazing legends
ana ivanovic and the italian girls, especially pennetta (forza azzurre! RG CHAMP FRANCESCA AND FINALIST SARA!)
aga, vika, sam, na in the next tier
NEVER say "I don't care who wins, I just want good tennis"
FaceyFacem is offline  
post #14 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
Martian Willow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Below the stars.
Posts: 6,695
                     
I'm sure I read somewhere that the original reason women don't play five sets at slams is because the men didn't want to hang around waiting for their matches too long. If that's true, and it wasn't the womens' decision to play three sets, and it isn't based on their ability to play three sets, then it really shouldn't be a factor at all in alocating prizemoney.

So you should investigate that, then come back and tell me, because I might have dreamed it.
Martian Willow is offline  
post #15 of 33 (permalink) Old Sep 27th, 2005, 05:02 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
Martian Willow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Below the stars.
Posts: 6,695
                     
Also, according to the editorial in the June 97 issue of Ace (not neccessarily the most reliable source, I admit), the women did offer to play five sets in return for equal prizemoney, but were refused. You have to consider whether it's the women who 'refuse' to play five sets, or whether it's the organisers (and audience, perhaps), who don't want them to.
Martian Willow is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome