PDA

View Full Version : Kim or Justine? Belgians disagree on Wimbledon's pay


spiceboy
Jun 19th, 2006, 05:31 PM
http://www.sportinglife.com/tennis/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=tennis/06/06/19/TENNIS_Eastbourne_Henin-Hardenne.html

BELGIANS DISAGREE ON PAY
By Bill Pierce, PA Sport

Belgian tennis queens Justin Henin-Hardenne and Kim Clijsters do not share the same opinion over Wimbledon prize money.

They are among the favourites to lift the women's title at the All-England Championships in two weeks.

But the pair do not see eye to eye with the fact men win more cash than women at the world's biggest tournament - £655,000 compared to £625,000.

Henin-Hardenne, who won her fifth Grand Slam title and her third French Open crown in Paris earlier this month, admits it is a touchy subject that Wimbledon remains the only major tennis championship which does not offer equal pay to winners of the men's and women's competitions.

But she said: "I admire the men who have to play five sets for maybe five and a half hours to win a match.

"I don't think that women should be asked to do the same. We just have to accept that women and men are different.

"I can see it both ways. So I don't want to kick up a fuss over that."

But compatriot Clijsters insisted: "We work just as hard as the men. There is a big strain on the body and it is not just the matches but all the travelling we have to do practically all the year round."

Clijsters plans to retire at the end of next year - at the age of 24 - after a string of injuries to her hips, back and wrist.

And she will have the sympathy of Britain's culture secretary Tessa Jowell, who has joined the call for equal prize money for men and women players at Wimbledon.

Jowell has written to the All-England club expressing her "deep concern" over the gender disparity regarding prize money and points out the growing popularity of the women's game.

Meanwhile, Henin-Hardenne and Clijsters are trying to unseat champion and world number one Amelie Mauresmo at Eastbourne's Hastings Direct International Championship this week.

None of the three have ever won Wimbledon - Henin-Hardenne reached the final against America's Venus Williams in 2001 and has lost two semi-finals, while the furthest Mauresmo and Clijsters have got at SW19 are the semi-finals.

They are in Eastbourne - where Clijsters won the £60,000 first prize last year - trying to adapt to grass-courts, which most top players claim lowers the quality of their play.

But Mauresmo, who won the Australian Open - her first Grand Slam title at the age of 26 - in January when Henin-Hardenne retired ill in the final, says: "I believe it suits the way I play.

"I feel no pressure playing on that surface and perhaps that is why I am more confident when I come here.

"In France there is so much expectancy of me and I guess I know how Tim Henman has felt trying to win a title in his own country all these years.

"Maybe it is better for him this year that there is not so much attention on him."

tenn_ace
Jun 19th, 2006, 05:36 PM
JHH is just afraid to say the "wrong" thing. Her Pierre will beat the sh*t out of her if she does... :p

TheBoiledEgg
Jun 19th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Pierre beat Justine up :rolls:
more like Justine beats him up

LeRoy.
Jun 19th, 2006, 05:41 PM
JHH is just afraid to say the "wrong" thing. Her Pierre will beat the sh*t out of her if she does... :p

Don't you mean something like try to pull her hair out or scratch her with his long nails ?:o :tape:

hablo
Jun 19th, 2006, 05:42 PM
Kim :worship:

JackFrost
Jun 19th, 2006, 05:44 PM
JHH is just afraid to say the "wrong" thing. Her Pierre will beat the sh*t out of her if she does... :p

Since when is Justine afraid, to say the wrong things?
According to her haters, she don´t do anything else but say wrong things. :rolleyes:

pigam
Jun 19th, 2006, 05:52 PM
lol, allez!
what else is new.
Justine will get bashed for this, and so will Kim :yeah: :bounce:

SAEKeithSerena
Jun 19th, 2006, 06:01 PM
kim:)

griffin
Jun 19th, 2006, 06:04 PM
You mean, just because they're from the same country doesn't mean they'll think the same way?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! :eek:

(and those domestic violence jokes crack meup evert time. :rolleyes: )

tenn_ace
Jun 19th, 2006, 06:06 PM
Don't you mean something like try to pull her hair out or scratch her with his long nails ?:o :tape:


:haha:

tenn_ace
Jun 19th, 2006, 06:07 PM
Pierre beat Justine up :rolls:
more like Justine beats him up


I guess, then her statement makes sense.... :p :rolls:

miranda_lou
Jun 19th, 2006, 07:02 PM
It's all so silly.:lol: The total difference in money is 30,000.:rolleyes: It just seems so stupid. I guess those guys who run Wimbledon just want to let the women know who's really in charge. ("We'll show those bitches that men still run the world.":mad: )

So ridiculous.:rolleyes: So sad.:sad: They look so foolish and old fashion and out of touch. At this point it has very little to do with how many sets are played or how long a player is on the court. They're just being stubborn. Like those golf guys at the Masters tournament who refuse to allow women to play on their hollowed grounds.

Apoleb
Jun 19th, 2006, 07:05 PM
I agree with Justine, but I'd provide different reasons why there shouldn't be fuss about that. If the men's tournament can get more money for the organizers then they deserve a higher pay. Simple as that.

LoveFifteen
Jun 19th, 2006, 07:33 PM
Kim, maybe you USED to work as hard as the men, but now ... :o

sfselesfan
Jun 19th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Yet another reason for me to dislike Justine! The women work just as hard as the men, especially on grass...where the men's points are typically 2 seconds...if that...and the women rally almost every point.

SF

Gerri
Jun 19th, 2006, 08:54 PM
Justine :smash: Accepting that men are different doesn't mean accepting they're worth more. Anyway I'd much rather watch 60 minutes of a classic player like JHH than 5 hours of baseline attrition.

Kim :yeah:

Allez-H
Jun 19th, 2006, 09:02 PM
Actually I agree with Justine that the men work harder while the matches, and agree with Kim saying that the women work very hard next to the matches. I still think women deserve equal pay, the 5-sets excuse is bullshit. Men do not equal women, they have a better physical ability by nature. I also think that they should base the payements on tv-ratings, audiences,.... Surely womenstennis scores very, very good on this scale.

I like to compare this with carsalesmen. If you're an avarage carsalesman, you work your ass off day in day out and by the end of the week you'll have sold 5 cars. Now next to him you have the great carsalesman, who doesn't work nearly as hard as his fellow collegue but doesn't need to work that hard because his sale-qualities are better and by the end of the week he would've saled 7 cars.

It all coms down to this; the women bring in around the same amount of cash for the WTA/ATP/ITF as the men, so they should be payed equally

Dunlop1
Jun 19th, 2006, 09:02 PM
Yet another reason for me to dislike Justine! The women work just as hard as the men, especially on grass...where the men's points are typically 2 seconds...if that...and the women rally almost every point.

SF

Maybe the women should serve & volley more? :shrug:

alfonsojose
Jun 19th, 2006, 09:08 PM
Pierre beat Justine up :rolls:
more like Justine beats him up
:haha: :haha:

Dunlop1
Jun 19th, 2006, 09:09 PM
It all coms down to this; the women bring in around the same amount of cash for the WTA/ATP/ITF as the men, so they should be payed equally

Do you have data that verifies this?? If so then I am in full agreement.
Tennis players aren't paid by the hour. It's not about best of 3 or best of 5 sets.
I mean should Federer have received less pay at last years Wimbledon because 90% of his games were won in straight sets?
Should Nadal get way more money because on clay you play longer and have more 5 setters?

It's about revenue. If the women generate as much for the tournament as the men they should be payed equally.
Honestly I don't think it is the case though. I think the men generate more during the men-women events.

Allez-H
Jun 19th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Do you have data that verifies this?? If so then I am in full agreement.
Tennis players aren't paid by the hour. It's not about best of 3 or best of 5 sets.
I mean should Federer have received less pay at last years Wimbledon because 90% of his games were won in straight sets?
Should Nadal get way more money because on clay you play longer and have more 5 setters?

It's about revenue. If the women generate as much for the tournament as the men they should be payed equally.
Honestly I don't think it is the case though. I think the men generate more during the men-women events.

Unfortunatly I don't, but just look at the crowds that they draw even when they give a 6-1,6-1 beatdown to their opponent. If that's what the audience wants that heck give it to them and reward the female players for it.

It isn't a secret that since kournikova came around, that womentennis got a huge boost in popularity. And though she isn't around anymore, the fans remained for the game and the great characters of that same game. ATP = Fed-nadal fest, whereas WTA is like high-drama soap-opera :lol: That also, is a part of popularity

PLP
Jun 19th, 2006, 09:21 PM
The thing is, they're both right:

Justine is right in saying that women shouldn't be asked to play best-of-five matches the way the men are - think of all the injuries in the women's game these days when we're only at best-of-three! :o Justine with her injury issues knows about that firsthand.

Kim is also right. The women work just as hard as the men, regardless of the fact that they play best-of-three. They work themselves to the limit just like the men - and Kim also knows about injury issues firsthand.

All in all it sounds like Kim was more open about her opinion and Justine was just finessing the question... and of course this gets turned into "THE BELGIANS DISAGREE" by the writer. :o
Good points! Plus Justine never said that women shouldn't get paid the same amount, just that she can see both sides of the issue...The reporter put quite a spin on those qoutes, LOL!

Farina Elia Fan
Jun 19th, 2006, 10:18 PM
I dont say it often but I agree with Justine on this one

Robbie.
Jun 19th, 2006, 11:25 PM
Good points! Plus Justine never said that women shouldn't get paid the same amount, just that she can see both sides of the issue...The reporter put quite a spin on those qoutes, LOL!

And Justine is right. This is such a non-issue. Yes in an ideal world, women and men would get paid equally at GS. I don't buy the whole best of five thing, because everyone knows that the vast majority of a pro player's work is done off the court, not on it - and in that respect women work just as hard as men. Furthermore this whole 'pay for how much time you have on court' simply doesn't work. A man can win a GS title in 12-15 hours or in 25 hours. Should the latter get paid twice as much according to this theory? If not, how does the theory remain internally consistent? Tennis players aren't working shifts at the local super market, attempting to formulate their pay in a way consistent with that is :retard:

However, it's still not a big issue for me in substantive terms. Men's prizemoney in general massively outflanks that of the WTA, and generally in tournaments where the men play best of three and the time on court excuse goes out the window. That is really where the women are hit hard in comparison to the men, not by the relatively small discrepancies at Grand Slam tournaments. Due to sponsorship dollars, this will not be changing any time soon. Evening the pay level at GS is merely symbolism. Good symbolism, I admit, but like most tokens I can take it or leave it.

Pheobo
Jun 19th, 2006, 11:30 PM
I think the men should play two out of three sets like the women, and everybody gets equal pay.

That way everyone's happy and we don't have to sit through boring 5 setters anymore.

TheAllan
Jun 19th, 2006, 11:44 PM
Men's prizemoney in general massively outflanks that of the WTA, and generally in tournaments where the men play best of three and the time on court excuse goes out the window.
Well-put. Complaining about a 5 percent disparity at one particular Slam is not very convincing when we are dealing with somewhere in the realm of 30 percent between the respective tours. Haven't done the exact match, but I doubt that guess is too far off.

I'd love to see the women earning more, particularly the lower-ranked girls. But I think it starts with their own tour.

Chrissie-fan
Jun 19th, 2006, 11:51 PM
Just for the record, like someone else has pointed out, Justine DIDN'T say that she necessarily disagrees with Kim, ONLY that she understands both sides of the issue.

Personally I think that there should be equal pay. How long matches last isn't a valid argument IMO. Mike Tyson used to get a zillion dollars for beating the shit out of someone for a few seconds. Athletes get lots of money for running 100m in ten seconds.....

Besides, you don't get payed just for your time on the tennis court. You get payed also for the hard work you put into getting to be as good as you are.

controlfreak
Jun 20th, 2006, 12:23 AM
I was expecting it to be the other way round - Justine being all greedy and wanting equal prize money, and Kim being the nice girl and not wanting to make a fuss about it. I guess the two of them have both learned to use the side of their character that we don't usually associate with them.

sfselesfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:49 AM
Maybe the women should serve & volley more? :shrug:

Yeah...cuz there are so many men who serve and volley!?! The reason the points are so short is that it's usually:

Serve-ace
Serve-unreturnable
Serve-return-winner
Serve-ace

Game over.

As if Andy Roddick could put away a friggin volley. Marat sure won't go to the net. Federer does a fair bit, but dosn't need to very often. No Spaniards or South Americans volley. Most American men suck at volleying. I don't know what tournament you're watching...but there aren't very many competent serve and volley players on the men's tour...and most who do are veterans who rarely make it deep.

Rarely do I see competent serve and volley play on either tour.

Men's tennis at Wimbledon is extremely boring.

SF

switz
Jun 20th, 2006, 01:51 AM
funny i expected the opposite opinions when i read the title.

for once i agree with Justine :scared:

JustineTime
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:07 AM
I knew Justine and I would agree on this. We almost always do. It's simple math, really: why should the women get equal pay for UNequal work? :shrug:

sfselesfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:13 AM
I knew Justine and I would agree on this. We almost always do. It's simple math, really: why should the women get equal pay for UNequal work? :shrug:

Yeah...cuz they spend so much less time training, travelling, doing interviews, etc...etc...etc... :rolleyes:

Players like Justine diminish the legacy of players like Billie Jean King who set them up to be who they are today. Reading articles like this pisses me off.

SF

Justeenium
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:18 AM
Yeah...cuz they spend so much less time training, travelling, doing interviews, etc...etc...etc... :rolleyes:

Players like Justine diminish the legacy of players like Billie Jean King who set them up to be who they are today. Reading articles like this pisses me off.

SF

doubles players travel too. the men's and women's events are distinct events, and they do not generate the same revenue. I'd have no problem with a tournament paying the women more.

Sam L
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:19 AM
You mean, just because they're from the same country doesn't mean they'll think the same way?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! :eek:

(and those domestic violence jokes crack meup evert time. :rolleyes: )
Your post is dripping with sarcasm.

Anyway, Kim comes off looking very money hungry here.

Justeenium
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:19 AM
I was expecting it to be the other way round - Justine being all greedy and wanting equal prize money, and Kim being the nice girl and not wanting to make a fuss about it. I guess the two of them have both learned to use the side of their character that we don't usually associate with them.

or it could be that Kim is too nice to say NO to billie jean's brigade.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:24 AM
Yet another reason for me to dislike Justine!

This is not a topic to bash Justine, you ignorant fool :rolleyes: . You are so blinded and obsessed on mocking her that you take every opportunity just to make your pathethic excuse that you don't like her. Get a life. :tape:

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:35 AM
Back to the topic... I am on the fence. Neither Kim or Justine are wrong, but both aren't absolutely correct either. If women players all decide to play a 5-setter in a GS, then there should be equal pay, since they all played and worked as hard as the men. Problem is, can most of the players withstand 5 sets (or even 3)? If they can, then the issue is settled. But I think the answer is No (at this moment anyway).

By the way, it's a 30,000 difference... if they were me, I won't kick up a fuss over that little difference. Unless it is 100,000 or more.

Shenanigans
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:37 AM
Your post is dripping with sarcasm.

Anyway, Kim comes off looking very money hungry here.

I do not think it is about money but being equal, Justine strikes me in a way as someone who does not really like other women probably too emotional for her.
I think she has already said she prefers to watch mens tennis. So I am not surprised she has this view.
She reminds me of Maggie Thatcher :tape: a women who has achieved great things but seems to despise her own sex. :tape:

MrSerenaWilliams
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:53 AM
I agree with Justine but I also agree with Kim. ATP and WTA tennis is different. Women's tennis is MUCH more about the whole package. Women players (Serena, Maria, Kirlilenko, Venus) make their matches much more of a show, with their flashy and sexy designs and dramatic and superstar personalities. Plus the aspect of a cat fight is MUCH more appealing than a dog fight. High Marquee Womens Matches such as Serena v. Venus, Serena v. Maria, Venus v. Hingis, Maria v. Hingis, Serena v. Hingis are EXPONENTIALLY more popular than "marquee" mens matches.

Mens tennis is nice and they are really skilled, but sometimes I'd rather watch Serena DEMOLISH someone 6-1 6-1, than watch Federer dominate someone 6-0 6-0 6-0, simply because of the time invested in it.

Womens tournies, as far as I would surmise, make more money than men, becuase there are SO many stars. For whatever reason, Mauresmo, Kim, Justine, Linds, Elena, Kirilenko, are great supporting members to the SUPERSTARS like Serena, Venus, Martina, and Maria. Mens tennis has Andy, James, Rafa, and Roger. 3 Countries are represented by 4 men on the mens tour as opposed to 5 countries represented by LOTS of women.

I think they should be paid equally at the majors becuase its the 21st century and there's ONE sponsor for both events, so it makes no sense to have any differentiation, especially since they both have the same level of prestige unlike Cinci and Memphis.

I think it's really antiquated for Wimbly to pay men and women differently, but when I run it, then I'll make a change. I'm not gonna boycott the Championships, so whatever. Until they change their minds, we'll just have to sit back and just watch the more ENTERTAINING matches from the women, and marvel at the amazing SKILL of the men. Not to say that womens matches aren't skillful or that mens matches aren't entertaining, but I'm generalizing.

There SHOULD be equal pay, but until there is, there really isn't a lot we can do. Just voice our support for equality! Well said though by both women!

Greenout
Jun 20th, 2006, 02:54 AM
This thread is hilarious. :lol:

The same old people who wanted her to lose every match entered this year, and doubt every win is not liking what she says here. HA!

sfselesfan
Jun 20th, 2006, 03:19 AM
This is not a topic to bash Justine, you ignorant fool :rolleyes: . You are so blinded and obsessed on mocking her that you take every opportunity just to make your pathethic excuse that you don't like her. Get a life. :tape:

You're just a rude a$$hole. Stop stalking me. I'm just expressing my opinion. It pisses me off when women don't support equal pay for equal work. I'm entitled to express my opinion without you lashing out at me constantly. You get a life!

SF

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 20th, 2006, 03:25 AM
Womens tournies, as far as I would surmise, make more money than men, becuase there are SO many stars. For whatever reason, Mauresmo, Kim, Justine, Linds, Elena, Kirilenko, are great supporting members to the SUPERSTARS like Serena, Venus, Martina, and Maria. Mens tennis has Andy, James, Rafa, and Roger. 3 Countries are represented by 4 men on the mens tour as opposed to 5 countries represented by LOTS of women.

:spit: :eek:

Your post was brilliant, except that sentance. Mauresmo, Kim, Justine, Lindsay and Elena are not supporting members to the "superstars" just like Serena, Venus, Martina and Maria. Or else, tennis would only involve the four of them :p

Prizeidiot
Jun 20th, 2006, 08:30 AM
It's all so silly.:lol: The total difference in money is 30,000.:rolleyes: It just seems so stupid. I guess those guys who run Wimbledon just want to let the women know who's really in charge. ("We'll show those bitches that men still run the world.":mad: )

So ridiculous.:rolleyes: So sad.:sad: They look so foolish and old fashion and out of touch. At this point it has very little to do with how many sets are played or how long a player is on the court. They're just being stubborn. Like those golf guys at the Masters tournament who refuse to allow women to play on their hollowed grounds.
Actually you raise an interesting point.

The difference in pay is so insignificant... I mean if they were rewarding the men for having to play five sets, surely the difference would be much larger. The way it is at the moment, it is sort of like they're just making a statement.

Mind you, I really don't care that much that the women don't get as much as the men. It's sort of hard to favour the women when the difference in standard of play is so massive

bobcat
Jun 20th, 2006, 09:12 AM
Yeah, when the difference is so tiny it's no longer about time spent on court. I wonder if the LTA would be more receptive to change if there were any female British players with a chance to win the tournament.

miranda_lou
Jun 20th, 2006, 04:13 PM
The difference in pay is so insignificant... I mean if they were rewarding the men for having to play five sets, surely the difference would be much larger. The way it is at the moment, it is sort of like they're just making a statement

My point exactly:rolleyes: The difference is 30,000 so if the women are truly being paid less because they play less, then the difference should be 100,000 or more.:tape: It's just a silly decision made by stubborn men.:rolleyes:

At any rate, and more significant, is the fact that women get far less money overall, at all WTA tournaments than the men get at their tournaments, and they all play best 2 of 3.:rolleyes: That's where the fight should be.