PDA

View Full Version : Wimbledon equal pay - Rennae Stubbs speaking on Daily Politics


cs0803
Jun 26th, 2006, 11:13 AM
Just a post to see if anyone saw Rennae Stubbs speaking on The Daily politics on bbc2 just before the wimbledon coverage began.
She made some great points about equal pay for the women, and got a dig in at Andy Murray saying he will probably regret saying that the 'women don't work as hard as men'. I didn't realise Andy said this but go Rennae! :D , What do you guys think about the equal pay?

shirgan
Jun 26th, 2006, 11:15 AM
Just a post to see if anyone saw Rennae Stubbs speaking on The Daily politics on bbc2 just before the wimbledon coverage began.
She made some great points about equal pay for the women, and got a dig in at Andy Murray saying he will probably regret saying that the 'women don't work as hard as men'. I didn't realise Andy said this but go Rennae! :D , What do you guys think about the equal pay?
what points did she make?

Chance
Jun 26th, 2006, 12:20 PM
Andy's mother pretty much said the same thing when she commentated on the Justine vs Myskina final

Kunal
Jun 26th, 2006, 12:23 PM
yae man...totally for the equal pay....cant help it that womens tennis is 3 sets...so wimby organizers better get theira act straight soon cuz its only gonna get worse for em.

stubbsy71
Jun 26th, 2006, 01:07 PM
The earn enuff for hitting a bloody ball - greedy greedy springs to mind

Wonder how many would boycott it if they feel so strongly about it ???????

Rexman
Jun 26th, 2006, 01:21 PM
Here's something I pointed out about equal pay before. Wimbledon is able to charge more for the men's final and semis than the ladies final and semis, adding up to a difference of 193250 euros.

If the men are earning the tournament more money, don't they deserve more?

I'm all for equal pay. As long as it's equal all over, not just in the amount of money going into a player's pocket.

JonBcn
Jun 26th, 2006, 01:31 PM
If a woman does my job, she should receive the same pay as me. But if I work 8 hours and she works 6, why should we get the same reward?

ALL best-of-three set tournaments should pay men and women the same as a matter of principle. In this case, I really dont understand the fuss.

cellophane
Jun 26th, 2006, 01:39 PM
If a woman does my job, she should receive the same pay as me. But if I work 8 hours and she works 6, why should we get the same reward?

Because a woman can't work 8 hours? ;)

shirgan
Jun 26th, 2006, 01:41 PM
If a woman does my job, she should receive the same pay as me. But if I work 8 hours and she works 6, why should we get the same reward?

ALL best-of-three set tournaments should pay men and women the same as a matter of principle. In this case, I really dont understand the fuss.
what would you say then about venus' point that the wimbledon's women's final last year lasted 45 minutes more than the men's final?

she didn't get any extra pay for that... she actually got payed less!

balie
Jun 26th, 2006, 01:41 PM
But "working" for a professional tennis player is not only the length of a match... it's training everyday, year after year, hiring a coach, traveling, etc. The difference of one set during the "show" is just a little part of a whole. And I think that the personal investment men and women do in their sport can be quite similar. I would even say that women are sacrificing the years when they would be biologically the most capable to have a child.

Martian Stacey
Jun 26th, 2006, 02:29 PM
If a woman does my job, she should receive the same pay as me. But if I work 8 hours and she works 6, why should we get the same reward?

ALL best-of-three set tournaments should pay men and women the same as a matter of principle. In this case, I really dont understand the fuss.
So should a man who is on the court for say 2.5 hours earn as much as a man on court for 5 hours? :scratch:

Martian Stacey
Jun 26th, 2006, 02:29 PM
what would you say then about venus' point that the wimbledon's women's final last year lasted 45 minutes more than the men's final?

she didn't get any extra pay for that... she actually got payed less!
well put :)

JonBcn
Jun 26th, 2006, 02:45 PM
what would you say then about venus' point that the wimbledon's women's final last year lasted 45 minutes more than the men's final?

she didn't get any extra pay for that... she actually got payed less!

Yes, obviously there will be exceptions, but Venus had to play a maximum of 18 sets to reach the final (in reality it would have been 13 or 14), the men would have had to be prepared to play a minimum of 18 sets to get to the same stage.

TennisFan75
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:04 PM
at this point, I would think it would more about the entertainment value of the tennis, as opposed to its length, or who is putting butts in the seats, so to speak. If the women are drawing just as big crowds as the men, the by all means pay them the same. The money shouldnít just be about the quantity of tennis.. Personally, I would never pay to watch some of these endless menís matches that are 5 hours of baseline rallies and could put insomniacs to sleep. but thatís just me; there are plenty of dull as dishwater women's matches as well.

:wavey:

stubbsy71
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:06 PM
If it is a question of woman are equal to men and all of that - why aren't they asking for the mens prize money to be reduced? It's a question of money and greed and that's the point I disagree with.

shirgan
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:11 PM
If it is a question of woman are equal to men and all of that - why aren't they asking for the mens prize money to be reduced? It's a question of money and greed and that's the point I disagree with.
because they don't want to hurt anyone else,
they just want equal pay.

if the organizers decide to divide the same total money equaly that's their prerogative,
but to have women saying men's pay should be hurt is a bit problematic in my view

marmite1
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:15 PM
because they don't want to hurt anyone else,
they just want equal pay.

if the organizers decide to divide the same total money equaly that's their prerogative,
but to have women saying men's pay should be hurt is a bit problematic in my view

I agree.

Furthermore, can you imagine the outrage if the idea of men getting paid less to make things equal. A lot of male players would be up in arms about it. Not that I'm saying its right that they should be. But, in practice I don't think it will be looked well upon.

borisy
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:16 PM
If people would be paid according to how many hours they stay on court, then everyone would try to take it to the 3rd or 5th set to earn as much as possible :lol:

rjd1111
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:17 PM
If a woman does my job, she should receive the same pay as me. But if I work 8 hours and she works 6, why should we get the same reward?

ALL best-of-three set tournaments should pay men and women the same as a matter of principle. In this case, I really dont understand the fuss.


Then let the Men play 3 sets.
In most of those 5 set matches the guys pace themselves to go
5 sets. If it went 3 sets they would have to play their best the whole
match. Better Tennis.

shirgan
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:18 PM
If people would be paid according to how many hours they stay on court, then everyone would try to take it to the 3rd or 5th set to earn as much as possible :lol:
great idea :lol:

marmite1
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:19 PM
Then let the Men play 3 sets.
In most of those 5 set matches the guys pace themselves to go
5 sets. If it went 3 sets they would have to play their best the whole
match. Better Tennis.

Agreed.

I fined that most men's matches are boring because they are pacing themselves instead of giving their all.

TS
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:33 PM
This must be a WTA world record. The first thread with "Rennae Stubbs Speaking..." in the title, and nobody has slagged her off within the first 10 posts.

rjd1111
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:34 PM
at this point, I would think it would more about the entertainment value of the tennis, as opposed to its length, or who is putting butts in the seats, so to speak. If the women are drawing just as big crowds as the men, the by all means pay them the same. The money shouldnít just be about the quantity of tennis.. Personally, I would never pay to watch some of these endless menís matches that are 5 hours of baseline rallies and could put insomniacs to sleep. but thatís just me; there are plenty of dull as dishwater women's matches as well.

:wavey:


Good point

rjd1111
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:34 PM
If a woman does my job, she should receive the same pay as me. But if I work 8 hours and she works 6, why should we get the same reward?

ALL best-of-three set tournaments should pay men and women the same as a matter of principle. In this case, I really dont understand the fuss.


If that woman brings the same profit to the company in 6 hrs as you do in
8 then yes she should make the same pay. In Fact she should get more.

The Ladies put as many, and sometimes more, butts in the seats as the
guys. IIt wasn't that long ago that the Ladies Doubles final outdrew
the mens final in ratings.

stubbsy71
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:35 PM
At the end of the day the only people that would suffer is the paying public because they'd put the tickets prices up to equal the pay ;)

Gerri
Jun 26th, 2006, 03:42 PM
At the end of the day the only people that would suffer is the paying public because they'd put the tickets prices up to equal the pay ;)

Yes because Wimbledon only made about £25 million profit last year ;) I want to know what Rennae said - did she get angry? :lol:

tennnisfannn
Jun 26th, 2006, 04:00 PM
So should a man who is on the court for say 2.5 hours earn as much as a man on court for 5 hours? :scratch:
Not to mention how if you are employed on a part time basis you cannot be paid for a full time's worth of work.

RunDown
Jun 26th, 2006, 04:16 PM
If that woman brings the same profit to the company in 6 hrs as you do in
8 then yes she should make the same pay. In Fact she should get more.

The Ladies put as many, and sometimes more, butts in the seats as the
guys. IIt wasn't that long ago that the Ladies Doubles final outdrew
the mens final in ratings.

Excellent point.

rjd1111
Jun 26th, 2006, 04:16 PM
At the end of the day the only people that would suffer is the paying public because they'd put the tickets prices up to equal the pay ;)


The difference in money is miniscule compared to their profits. Its not
a money issue. The AEC is giving the ladies a Slap in the face.

Carmen Mairena
Jun 26th, 2006, 04:20 PM
This must be a WTA world record. The first thread with "Rennae Stubbs Speaking..." in the title, and nobody has slagged her off within the first 10 posts.

:haha: :lol:

dreamgoddess099
Jun 26th, 2006, 04:36 PM
The earn enuff for hitting a bloody ball - greedy greedy springs to mind
You think the women wanting equality is greedy, but the men wanting more is not? It's so obvious that the extra money given to the men is for the men's ego only. If they truly were being compensated for the extra sets they sometimes play, don't you think they'd be paid a lot more than an extra 50,000 Euros?

Wonder how many would boycott it if they feel so strongly about it ???????
A lot of them really don't want to hurt the tournament's viewers and fans. Beside, they'll get more press by speaking about the issue while at the tournament. They can speak about it during on-court interviews, and press conferences.

CoryAnnAvants#1
Jun 26th, 2006, 04:48 PM
This is clearly a social issue for Wimbledon and nothing else. If they paid the women equally, they would take less than a 2% hit in profit for the tournament. They're doing this for the same reason a dog lick it's balls; because they can. Even though the majority of male players and people in Britain have shown that they support equal prize money, they won't budge. The head of the tournament made some absolutely outrageous comment last year like that they won't give the women equal prize money because, "it would leave us less money to spend money on petunias."

They're also doing because the women will NOT get together and boycott the tournament. It's as simple as that. Maybe one or two stars will boycott out of principle, but not enough to affect the tournament. If Venus withdrew next year it would cause a few ruffles before the tournament started, but ultimately everything would go about as scheduled on day 1 like nothing happened. If the top 20 players pulled out next year, the #21 wouldn't simply because they'd see it as their chance to win the biggest Grand Slam.

I'm happy Rennae is speaking out on the issue, but quite frankly her opinion will not do shit to affect Wimbledon organizers. Who's next to speak out? Bryanne Stewart? They need EVERYBODY in the top 10 to say something for this to have a shot at working.

dreamgoddess099
Jun 26th, 2006, 05:16 PM
Here's something I pointed out about equal pay before. Wimbledon is able to charge more for the men's final and semis than the ladies final and semis, adding up to a difference of 193250 euros.

If the men are earning the tournament more money, don't they deserve more?
Well that's the point, the men may sell a few more tickets in person because of the length of their matches, but the revenue the tournament brings in from the higher TV rated women's matches more than make up for the ticket sells. You're talking an extra 193250 euros generated by the men's semis and finals from ticket sells compared to the couple of extra million TV viewers for the women's matches that bring in a couple extra million dollars from advertising. The tournament brings in about 25 million dollars a year. The majority of that money does not come from ticket sells, but from advertising.
I'm all for equal pay.
As long as it's equal all over, not just in the amount of money going into a player's pocket.If you're refering to the amount of sets the men play, it's the tournament that doesn't allow women to play five sets. How can you justify paying women less for less work, when it's the tournament that forces women to work less? They limit the players only to punish them for it, that's just cruel.

saki
Jun 26th, 2006, 05:30 PM
I think the fairest way to decide this would be to look at the last 10 years and see how many tickets were sold for the womens' matches and how many for the mens' - that only really applies in week 2 obviously - and the TV ratings and the advertising ratings. Work out how much money the women brought in and how many bums they put on seats and settle it accordingly with reviews every 5 years. If the women bring in as much money as the men despite the 3 sets Vs 5 sets thing, they should get equal pay. Just like how salaried employees are expected to put in a certain amount of work and it doesn't matter how many hours a week they take to do it.

mboyle
Jun 26th, 2006, 05:49 PM
If a woman does my job, she should receive the same pay as me. But if I work 8 hours and she works 6, why should we get the same reward?

ALL best-of-three set tournaments should pay men and women the same as a matter of principle. In this case, I really dont understand the fuss.

Because the women do not have the opportunity to work as long.

rjd1111
Jun 26th, 2006, 05:50 PM
This is clearly a social issue for Wimbledon and nothing else. If they paid the women equally, they would take less than a 2% hit in profit for the tournament. They're doing this for the same reason a dog lick it's balls; because they can. Even though the majority of male players and people in Britain have shown that they support equal prize money, they won't budge. The head of the tournament made some absolutely outrageous comment last year like that they won't give the women equal prize money because, "it would leave us less money to spend money on petunias."

They're also doing because the women will NOT get together and boycott the tournament. It's as simple as that. Maybe one or two stars will boycott out of principle, but not enough to affect the tournament. If Venus withdrew next year it would cause a few ruffles before the tournament started, but ultimately everything would go about as scheduled on day 1 like nothing happened. If the top 20 players pulled out next year, the #21 wouldn't simply because they'd see it as their chance to win the biggest Grand Slam.

I'm happy Rennae is speaking out on the issue, but quite frankly her opinion will not do shit to affect Wimbledon organizers. Who's next to speak out? Bryanne Stewart? They need EVERYBODY in the top 10 to say something for this to have a shot at working.


The WTA players should all announce that they will not play next year unless
its for equal pay. Get Backing and organize another tournament at the same
time at another venue. We will see what a big hit in the wallet does
to the AECs Stubborness. As long as it doesn't cost them anything they
will never change.

GoDominique
Jun 26th, 2006, 05:54 PM
There will never be a boycott, simply because Grand Slam prizemoney is so huge.

No female top-player will give up on the $1M winner's cheque, and no other player will give up on the $20K 1st round cheque.

~Rachel~
Jun 26th, 2006, 06:06 PM
If the main argument against equal pay is that men work HARDER for the money than women do then there seems to one glaring issue: women are not even given the chance to play 5 sets as men do. This not only denies them the opportunity to earn as much it also suggests that the organisers think that playing three sets is at the LIMIT of a woman's physical endurance, in which case, in their eyes, they are working just as hard as a man is in a 5 set match! This seems to be a glaring contradiction on the part of the Wimbledon organisers. If they don't think women work as hard, then let them play 5 sets. If they think they do work as hard then give them equal pay. Simple no?

CrossCourt~Rally
Jun 26th, 2006, 06:10 PM
If a woman does my job, she should receive the same pay as me. But if I work 8 hours and she works 6, why should we get the same reward?

ALL best-of-three set tournaments should pay men and women the same as a matter of principle. In this case, I really dont understand the fuss.

Well i think ALL tournaments should be 3 setters. Tennis would have allot more fans if the mens matches were not so damn long in the majors. Just have both of the women and men play 5 setters in the SF and F of slams..equal play = equal pay :bounce:

JonBcn
Jun 26th, 2006, 06:12 PM
I'd totally go along with that for the women - although I'd say quarter finals onwards, so we get the top ten playing each other over 5 sets.

GoDominique
Jun 26th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Well i think ALL tournaments should be 3 setters. Tennis would have allot more fans if the mens matches were not so damn long in the majors.
Keep telling that to yourself, idiot.

Classic best of 5 matches, that's what Grand Slams are about. Take that away and you have just another tournament.