Tennis Forum banner

One more though about equal prize money...

3K views 31 replies 24 participants last post by  valac222 
#1 ·
You people are talking that we all want equal prize money between women and men but hey aren't women getting much more money for winning a SET since men have to play best of 5 and not best of 3. This is not equality!
 
#4 ·
There are like 100 other threads on this. I think the mods should just merge them all into an "equal prize money" thread so we have one place to go on this topic. Every comment on this doesn't necessarily deserve its own thread.
 
#7 ·
This, 1 million times this. I'm so tired of this debate and yet it's being regurgitated in a different thread every single week with no new ideas coming up.
 
#5 ·
I get up and sing for 24 hours. Adam Levine gets up and sings for five minutes. Who get paid more? Who DESERVES to get paid more?
 
#8 ·
FFS, just give men some more money in the FOUR tournaments a year that they have to play Bo5. EVERY SINGLE OTHER FUCKING TOURNAMENT, MEN PLAY Bo3. Why do people make SUCH a big deal out of this.
 
#13 · (Edited)
Players are paid for winning a match. And this is what we look at.

You can go and complain to ITF why men are not playing best of 3 in Grand Slams.
 
#14 · (Edited)
You people are talking that we all want equal prize money between women and men but hey aren't women getting much more money for winning a SET since men have to play best of 5 and not best of 3. This is not equality!
it was discussed innumerous number of times. To start with womens 3 set matches very often are longer than mens 4 sets or even 5 sets

Djoker won 6-1 6-0 6-1 in his first round in 73 minutes
S Stephens won her match 6-3 6-4 in 95 minutes (2 sets longer than mens 3)
Errani won her match 6-3, 6-7, 6-1 in 116 minutes
O Puchkova won her match 7-6 6-7 6-3 in 173 minutes
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoLex
#18 ·
She's chosen to remain an amateur. Her choice. And she's already left several hundred thousand dollars in winning on the table. Must be nice to be able to afford to do that. Stanford isn't cheap.
 
#31 ·
:facepalm:

Dumb, DUMB answer.

Prizemoney is supposed to reflect the performance. The performance needed to win a best of 5 match is always a bit more.

I mean how fucking dumb do you have to be to defend something THIS arbitrary. How about all of you agree that the current situation isn't satisfactory and that both should play the same format? Nooo, that would make too much sense. :rolleyes:
 
#20 ·
So did the Baker-Halek match deliver more entertainment value than Robson-Clijsters?

In salary sports, stars get paid more than scrubs. In tournament sports, you get paid to win, period. A walkover win pays the same as all five sets going to tie-breakers.
 
#23 ·
i read all the ATP arguments and it dont make sense (so far)... the argument with the same GS reward between ATP and WTA..

i wish those ATP player council members can be more specific on what they want to change, in detail. if they want a raise in reward money then isnt it better to discuss it with the ATP organisers ? without resorting to gender payment equality arguments? it seems illogical..

i wish these ATP players realize that "locker room" discussion is not suitable for public consumption without getting a backlash from public.. if they are serious they should discuss this further with their formal meeting and release a statement with clear goal and arguments... so far all they said sound petty and sexist (though it maybe not what they meant)
 
#27 ·
So men who play a 5 set match should be paid more than men who play a 3 or 4 sets match?
Stakhovsky for his Wimbledon performance (1-6, 0-1 ret) should return money back then
 
#28 ·
i agreed with nashamasha...

The argument of playing 3 or 5 sets is soo weak and it smack of 'locker room' gripes that shouldnt be aired.

these ATP player council member should think it all through before saying weak stuff that indefensible and provoke further argument that detract their real purpose , that is a RAISE in prize money for non top-10 players..
 
#32 ·
First of all I dont like men tennis and I rather watch womens tennis.

This whole equal prize money is a valid topic, but not associated with best of 3 or 5 sets.

In most sports women play same conditions as men, but I dont thinks equal money will ever be a question in football, basketball and in most of the sports. The real question is how much money women or men bring to the sport. If women bring more money into tennis then women deserve to be paid better, if men then men. If LiNa brings the most money into this sport, then Li Na should earn the most. If it changes in every decade, then the earnings should change as well. I like women tennis, but I admit that the men tennis is more attractive (in money brought sense) in the last few years.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top