PDA

View Full Version : Equal Prize Money for women/men??


vogus
Feb 28th, 2005, 10:46 PM
my thoughts on this are, if the women worried a little bit more about the 70 percent less prize money they have on their own tour compared to what the ATP offers at its regular events, instead of always complaining about the 1 percent less money that the women get at Wimby and RG, the women might start making a lot more money. (what they did in Dubai today, doubling the money to match the men's, is obviously a good step).

Mens Masters Series winners get like 400,000$ for a title, while the top prize at WTA Tier 1 showcase tournies like Zurich, Charleston, Montreal/Toronto, Berlin, and Rome (where the men make TWICE as much the previous week at the same venue!!) is less than 200,000$. How come the women seem to have no issues with that huge differential when they are splitting hairs over the tiny fraction more that the men get at Grand Slams?

Is there anybody who can explain this to me?

(same thread posted in MTF)

vogus
Mar 1st, 2005, 03:26 PM
bump

GoDominique
Mar 1st, 2005, 03:49 PM
Because the WTA and the ATP are 2 independant associations. While both men and women at Slams are both ITF events.
Nice avatar :p

vogus
Mar 1st, 2005, 04:09 PM
Nice avatar :p


What do you have a granny fetish or something? Yuck.

GoDominique
Mar 1st, 2005, 04:21 PM
What do you have a granny fetish or something? Yuck.
Bad rep sent for dissing Nancy.

vogus
Mar 1st, 2005, 04:55 PM
Bad rep sent for dissing Nancy.


couldnt bad rep you back because apparently i good repped you recently.

You're a weird kid.

felipe2004
Mar 1st, 2005, 06:16 PM
my thoughts on this are, if the women worried a little bit more about the 70 percent less prize money they have on their own tour compared to what the ATP offers at its regular events, instead of always complaining about the 1 percent less money that the women get at Wimby and RG, the women might start making a lot more money. (what they did in Dubai today, doubling the money to match the men's, is obviously a good step).

Mens Masters Series winners get like 400,000$ for a title, while the top prize at WTA Tier 1 showcase tournies like Zurich, Charleston, Montreal/Toronto, Berlin, and Rome (where the men make TWICE as much the previous week at the same venue!!) is less than 200,000$. How come the women seem to have no issues with that huge differential when they are splitting hairs over the tiny fraction more that the men get at Grand Slams?

Is there anybody who can explain this to me?

(same thread posted in MTF)
I totally agree. GS prize money are okay like they are right now, but the others WTA tounaments should really be more similar to the men's tour. This is why, if you look the prize money rankings and compare men and women, in the men's there are so much more money.

Szymanowski
Mar 1st, 2005, 07:05 PM
what, slams have almost equal prize money?

i never knew this!

Shonami Slam
Mar 1st, 2005, 08:51 PM
not only that, but there are three tournies a week for 14 (i think) weeks each year in the mens tour, each giving out much more than tier III and IVs, while the women have only about 4 "mega-weeks" in which tons of players get cash like that, and it's mostly lower tiers.
the men's top "challengers" are 125K, that's tier level on the WTA!!!
crazy.

then again - I think the top ten in women are all much more hyped media-wise, so they have chances for money in different directions...

vogus
Mar 1st, 2005, 09:20 PM
But still, the reason why players complain about Slams is that it's the same organisation who direct both tournaments.

As for WTA and ATP tournaments... It's like saying Toshiba employees should complain because Sony employees are making more. If WTA players feel they're not making enough money, then they should complain to the WTA, but there's no point comparing to men.


look at it like this - suppose you and your cousin work two days a week at the same gourmet grocery store, and your cousin is making 19 bucks an hour and you are making 18.75.

Now suppose that four other days a week, you and your cousin also wash cars, at two different locations, but it's the same customers who come to both places, on alternating weeks to get their cars washed. For this work, your cousin is making 15 bucks an hour, but you are only making 6 and a quarter. In other words, you don't work for the same company, but you do the same work for the same customers, even though you are making FAR less money than your cousin.

Which situation would you spend your energy trying to fix?

Atrixo
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:07 PM
Some of the comments on the men's tennis forum on this subject are right out of the stone age... :eek:

The virulent sexism in some of those comments... for shame! :o

Crazy Canuck
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:10 PM
Some of the comments on the men's tennis forum on this subject are right out of the stone age... :eek:

The virulent sexism in some of those comments... for shame! :o

Like which ones? I skimmed the thread and wasn't very offended. Most of them seemed to focus on the business side of tennis - if the men bring in more money, they should get paid more is the reasoning. Of course, that point might be debatable, but the premise isn't necessarily sexist.

Atrixo
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:19 PM
Equal prize money should definitely be offered, when it concerns events which are sanctioned by one governing body (i.e. ITF); or tournaments operating under the auspices of marketing both men and women together, equally.

Equal money at ALL the other events seems unlikely. The WTA and ATP are two separate tours, with their own financial structure and system. Events solely sanctioned by each respective tour can hardly be compared in the same financial light. This is not even about whether women's or men's tennis is better . The ATP has been aroung longer; the world is still male-dominated (sadly), especially in the business world (sponsors); so it stands to reason, the men do make more on their tour. Whether they deserve it is another question altogether... :rolleyes:

The WTA should concentrate on increasing the level of money offered on their tour, at all levels. With the financial stability of having a long-term, title tour sponsor; and perhaps increased support from existing and new corporate sponsorship; the WTA can certainly stop this stagnation in prize money that we've seen for the past 6-7 years.

Atrixo
Mar 1st, 2005, 10:25 PM
Like which ones? I skimmed the thread and wasn't very offended. Most of them seemed to focus on the business side of tennis - if the men bring in more money, they should get paid more is the reasoning. Of course, that point might be debatable, but the premise isn't necessarily sexist.

Sorry, that was just my perception. I understand some of them were arguing the business aspects of this subject; but the evident disgust and disdain some of them have towards the WTA, and female tennis players, pervaded many of their posts. Again, this is simply my observation.

23TwentyThree23
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:39 AM
I am always for women getting equal prize money. no-one asks them to play longer? they are just as entertaining, often moreso. imagine wimbledon or Roland Garros without the women players...pretty boring, no?

Natasc
Mar 2nd, 2005, 12:54 AM
I agree that SLAM should be different prizes
VERY DIFFERENTS

Women can play at the most 2 tyebrake and then they can go more than 6-6 in games
BUT Mens...they can play 4 tybrakes and a more thna 6 games in 5!!
Imagine that!!

Someone saw that match between Roddick and El Anuay (I dont know how to wrote his name)
Was for 5 set and Roddick won for 21-19 :eek:
Imagine!! You play 4 set's and then...you almost dead, almost falling sleep need won for 21-19!!

So, I realy think that women's cant take the same in GS's
It's a like a job that you need be pay for what you do.
Like, if you work 4 hours you get pay for 4 not for 5

And if is not enought look for the level of the matchs WOMEN and MEN in auzie
Women was playing terrible matchs.
Linds got a 'tire' (it's how we call 6love here) in a final of GS
The matchs was full of UE's
And we didnt saw rallies like we usualy saw.

got it? :yeah:

of course...all this IMO ;)


ps: besides that I think that Linds is being a litle bet 'mercenarie'. She plays for the game or for the money?

Atrixo
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:22 AM
I agree that SLAM should be different prizes
VERY DIFFERENTS

Women can play at the most 2 tyebrake and then they can go more than 6-6 in games
BUT Mens...they can play 4 tybrakes and a more thna 6 games in 5!!
Imagine that!!

Someone saw that match between Roddick and El Anuay (I dont know how to wrote his name)
Was for 5 set and Roddick won for 21-19 :eek:
Imagine!! You play 4 set's and then...you almost dead, almost falling sleep need won for 21-19!!

So, I realy think that women's cant take the same in GS's
It's a like a job that you need be pay for what you do.
Like, if you work 4 hours you get pay for 4 not for 5

And if is not enought look for the level of the matchs WOMEN and MEN in auzie
Women was playing terrible matchs.
Linds got a 'tire' (it's how we call 6love here) in a final of GS
The matchs was full of UE's
And we didnt saw rallies like we usualy saw.

got it? :yeah:

of course...all this IMO ;)


ps: besides that I think that Linds is being a litle bet 'mercenarie'. She plays for the game or for the money?


If you think the women's game is so damn terrible; and that the female players just can't cut it; what the hell are you doing here on this board? :rolleyes:

And the reason that women don't play 5 sets, is not because they can't, but because they aren't allowed to by the ITF (which sanction the Grand Slams).

All this talk about men playing 5 sets, as somehow being a perfectly justifiable reason to continue to give women less prize money at the Grand Slams (Wimbledon and Roland Garros) is ridiculous. I say scrap the damn 5 setters in opening rounds for the men (they're a friggin snorefest anyway); and bring them in for both men and women, from the QFs onward. That way when there's less players left, the scheduling can accommodate these matches; and provide for a more, unpredictable road to the finals.

Natasc
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:33 AM
If you think the women's game is so damn terrible; and that the female players just can't cut it; what the hell are you doing here on this board? :rolleyes:

And the reason that women don't play 5 sets, is not because they can't, but because they aren't allowed to by the ITF (which sanction the Grand Slams).

All this talk about men playing 5 sets, as somehow being a perfectly justifiable reason to continue to give women less prize money at the Grand Slams (Wimbledon and Roland Garros) is ridiculous. I say scrap the damn 5 setters in opening rounds for the men (they're a friggin snorefest anyway); and bring them in for both men and women, from the QFs onward. That way when there's less players left, the scheduling can accommodate these matches; and provide for a more, unpredictable road to the finals.
I did not say that was terrible.
I said that THEY WAS terrible in AUS open 05
but guess this because of the begining of the season (I pray for that be true)

So, you realy think that women CAN play 5 sets?

I dont think so

Look for some longs matchs of 3 sets
Dementieva x Capriati USO they are damn tired
Linds got a 6love in a final after she won the first set for 62
She was just DEAD, she can't almost move
Look for Maria and Kuzna match in Auzie...if exist another set there they will just die
They are DAMN tired
I dont think that they can play 5 sets

and...you get paid for the job that you do
It's like someone gat paid for 5 hours of job when they just work for 2 hours

I dont think that IN GS they should receive the same prize....
But OK in others tournaments

Atrixo
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:49 AM
...and...you get paid for the job that you do
It's like someone gat paid for 5 hours of job when they just work for 2 hours

I dont think that IN GS they should receive the same prize....
But OK in others tournaments


But don't you see the flaw in your analogy? The reason they're (men) paid for the 5 hours of work, is because their boss (ITF) ALLOWS them to work 5 hours.
The women are prevented by their boss (ITF) from working more than 3 hours.
How is that fair to the women when they AREN'T ALLOWED to work the same
number of hours as the men. See that? :rolleyes:

And what is the reason for keeping the prize money unequal now anyway? Especially when you factor in the fact that the money paid out by Wimbledon and Roland Garros to the men and women, only differs by $40-60,000. What?
Let's keep the prize money different, and continue to discriminate against the women, on principle (i.e. sexism) alone? It's absolutely ridiculous! :(

Natasc
Mar 2nd, 2005, 01:56 AM
But don't you see the flaw in your analogy? The reason they're (men) paid for the 5 hours of work, is because their boss (ITF) ALLOWS them to work 5 hours.
The women are prevented by their boss (ITF) from working more than 3 hours.
How is that fair to the women when they AREN'T ALLOWED to work the same
number of hours as the men. See that? :rolleyes:

And what is the reason for keeping the prize money unequal now anyway? Especially when you factor in the fact that the money paid out by Wimbledon and Roland Garros to the men and women, only differs by $40-60,000. What?
Let's keep the prize money different, and continue to discriminate against the women, on principle (i.e. sexism) alone? It's absolutely ridiculous! :(
I will ask you again: you think that Sharapova, Dementieva, Davenport, Serena or any other women play can play 5 hours?

looking for how they be in a match when goes to 3 set...I dont think so
but I wanna know what you think :)

I respect your opinion, I just think that ITF put 3 set's for some reason

RoanHJ
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:12 AM
I did not say that was terrible.
I said that THEY WAS terrible in AUS open 05
but guess this because of the begining of the season (I pray for that be true)

So, you realy think that women CAN play 5 sets?

I dont think so

Look for some longs matchs of 3 sets
Dementieva x Capriati USO they are damn tired
Linds got a 6love in a final after she won the first set for 62
She was just DEAD, she can't almost move
Look for Maria and Kuzna match in Auzie...if exist another set there they will just die
They are DAMN tired
I dont think that they can play 5 sets

and...you get paid for the job that you do
It's like someone gat paid for 5 hours of job when they just work for 2 hours

I dont think that IN GS they should receive the same prize....
But OK in others tournaments


You can't compare tennis to a 9-5 hour job. It's not the same thing. The fact is no one male or female is paid an hourly or how many sets did you play wage. Money in sports, just like entertainment, is based on how much money can you bring in. Simply put: if you can put more butts in those seats and bring in more advertisment etc. your sport is going to make more. There's a lot of sports where they work longer and harder than tennis players but no one watches them so, they don't make as much. There's a lot of professions out there.....teachers, police, fireman...who in a fair world would make more money than any athlete. But, alas teachers,for example, don't create wealth for the right people so, no matter how long they work, or how hard, or how educated they may be, or how much they give back it doesn't matter, they're still not going to make as much money as the next person who wins American Idol. Is that fair?

Now as for the women, there have been times in the past when both Serena and Venus have reached a final and they have pulled in more viewers than what the men did in their finals. And still they got paid less. That is when the WTA should step in and start looking out for their players.

Atrixo
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:22 AM
I will ask you again: you think that Sharapova, Dementieva, Davenport, Serena or any other women play can play 5 hours?

looking for how they be in a match when goes to 3 set...I dont think so
but I wanna know what you think :)

I respect your opinion, I just think that ITF put 3 set's for some reason


A lot of their reasons are outdated. Female players are as fit as ever nowadays. Of course there are differences in conditioning between players (just like for men). You don't think the men get dead tired in a 5-set marathon nightmare. I've seen my fair share of 5-setters among the men, and they weren't pretty. :o

You simply can't continue to discriminate against a group of people (women) just because of their physiology. The tennis world has to get in step with the times in the real world (some of it anyway). Discrimination does nothing but harm. Either allow women to play 5 sets and get equal money that way, or eliminate them altogether, and everyone plays 3 sets for equal money. This "artificially" created barrier to equal prize money is outdated, and has to go.

RoanHJ
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:39 AM
I will ask you again: you think that Sharapova, Dementieva, Davenport, Serena or any other women play can play 5 hours?

looking for how they be in a match when goes to 3 set...I dont think so
but I wanna know what you think :)

I respect your opinion, I just think that ITF put 3 set's for some reason


If women can compete, and they do, in things such as the Triathlons they can certainly go 5 sets in tennis.

vogus
Mar 2nd, 2005, 02:40 AM
If you think the women's game is so damn terrible; and that the female players just can't cut it; what the hell are you doing here on this board? :rolleyes:
.


give the poster a break, she never said women's tennis is terrible, she said the tennis in the AO final was terrible and blamed it on Davenport, which is a totally justified statement. Davenport just took it to the bank in the third set.

If i were the women, i'd calculate that the women are making 50 percent MORE money per TIME ON COURT than the men at the GS tournies, and shut the heck up. What if the Grand Slams suddenly decided to cut the women's pay to a proportion reflecting their time spent on court? The women would be FAR FAR worse off, than they are now.

If anybody is being discriminated against at the GS tournies, it's the men, not the women. But, if they got rid of best of 5 for the men as you suggest (not a bad idea really), i'd be all in favor of equal prize money.