PDA

View Full Version : Are You Agree With What Pat Cash Says?


Nicolás89
Dec 2nd, 2006, 12:41 AM
for everyone who doesnt know he basically says that women tennis is overpaid and that venus and company are just whining away for asking equal money prices.
His arguments are that mens tennis is a longer event in time that women tennis is, and that atp is better quality than wta is.

in my opinion he is a moron but everyone has right to speak their minds i guess

i like tennis i watch tennis every time that i can but for me watch 5 sets of tennis is too much and so boring like the rome final with federer and nadal(4 sets actually) yes was a quality match good winners great rallies but cmon watch the same for almost 5 hours is booooring so i prefer watch womens tennis that are shorter in time, today womens tennis is growing and growing almost every match between top 50 players are great in quality and are very entertaining so f*** U Pat Cash:wavey:

drake3781
Dec 2nd, 2006, 12:46 AM
...., today womens tennis is growing and growing almost every match between top 50 players are great in quality and are very entertaining so f*** U Pat Cash:wavey:

:lol: ;)

I pretty much agree with you (not Pat Cash).

I think at the majors, having men's and women's events together, that the prize money should be the same. At individual WTA/ATP calendar events, the market should dictate the prize money.

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 01:11 AM
I agree with him. I don't like the way how he puted it, but generally he is right. Imagine that you spend 12 hours working and someone who spend for example 8 hours working (doing the same work) is payed equaly. Would you be happy with it or would you protest? The answer is quite obvious. It has nothing to do with quality, the men just work more and therefore should be payed more. I am talking only about the Slams of course, other tournaments are utterly different matter and the prize money there should be equal - but this depends on sponsoring and other issues.

btw. Five-setters are usually the best matches of the year, it's a pity that you find them boring. Mainly the last sets are usually extraordinary. ;)

South_Paw
Dec 2nd, 2006, 01:16 AM
No. I am not agree with Pat Cash (sic).

Yes - men are better players than women. But that is only 1 of many factors that go into how much prize money each sex should get. Let the market determine the prize money. At events where they are not together, it's a moot point. If sponsors can be found that will put up X amount of prize money - so be it. I prefer to watch women's tennis these days. Men's matches are boring. They are WAY too long. 5 sets is ridiculous. They've got to do away with that. There's no way a men's or women's match should go much beyond 2 hours! Longer than that and you are going to lose fans. People don't have time to watch more than 2 hours of a sporting event. Also the serve has become too much of a weapon in men's tennis.

If men's tennis wants to stay with 5 set matches, there are several changes they can make to speed up play AND take some emphasis away from the serve. 1) Only allow 1 serve per point. 2) Play all lets (no serve over). 3) Go to no ad scoring. Try that for a year and see how it goes. Then make more adjustments.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 03:02 AM
:lol: ;)

I pretty much agree.

I think at the majors, having men's and women's events together, that the prize money should be the same. At individual WTA/ATP calendar events, the market should dictate the prize money.

Yep - that's fair.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 03:04 AM
I agree with him. I don't like the way how he puted it, but generally he is right. Imagine that you spend 12 hours working and someone who spend for example 8 hours working (doing the same work) is payed equaly. Would you be happy with it or would you protest? The answer is quite obvious. It has nothing to do with quality, the men just work more and therefore should be payed more. I am talking only about the Slams of course, other tournaments are utterly different matter and the prize money there should be equal - but this depends on sponsoring and other issues.

btw. Five-setters are usually the best matches of the year, it's a pity that you find them boring. Mainly the last sets are usually extraordinary. ;)

OK then imagine you spend hours doing interviews/fullfilling other commitments, and have your face plastered on billboards, on tv ads and so, and get less than someone who is not used because he's not a top player - why should you get less than him? :p And if you are bringing in more fans than a male player, why should you be paid less? That makes no sense!

5-asetters are so freaking BORING because they take so LONG! It's ok if you can just watch the last set, but the problem is, you still have the have them play the first 4 sets to! I'd prefer the men to play best of 3 at the Grand Slams!

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 04:19 AM
You are so right! I remember this year's Australian Open, waiting for the clijsters/Hingis quater-final to come on. Because of the Kiefer/Grosjean match before it, they had to reschedule it. That was one of the most boring matches I've ever seen. It went for hours, and was just crap!

REDUCE MEN'S MATCHES AT GRAND SLAMS TO THREE SETS!!!!!!!!!!!!

kiefer/grosjean match had drama, but drama that i wasn't particularly interested in.

as for pat cash - i disagree with that statement he rudefully said.

franny
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:57 AM
There are certainly arguments against equal pay, but Pat Cash's elequent analysis of those argument falls short of really portraying what is really the issue here. Sorry Pat, try again, better yet, just STFU!

aussie_fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:38 AM
You are so right! I remember this year's Australian Open, waiting for the clijsters/Hingis quater-final to come on. Because of the Kiefer/Grosjean match before it, they had to reschedule it. That was one of the most boring matches I've ever seen. It went for hours, and was just crap!

REDUCE MEN'S MATCHES AT GRAND SLAMS TO THREE SETS!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol: you're joking right. there can be nothing like a 5th set of tennis, the drama involved can be incredible. I wish women played 5 sets as well (for grand slam level)

As far as equal prizemoney in grand slams goes, i don't think there should be. Women only play 3 sets and men play 5 and women think they should get equal prizemoney, what a joke. It's a simple work hours issue, if i had a business where a male work worked 16 hours and got paid the same as a women worked for 10 hours it could be called completely outragous. As far as other tournaments go, they both play 3 sets so equal prizemoney is fine there, of course it would be based on sposnorship dollar.

I just can't believe people actually find best of 5 set tennis boring, how sad.

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:47 AM
:lol: you're joking right. there can be nothing like a 5th set of tennis, the drama involved can be incredible. I wish women played 5 sets as well (for grand slam level)

As far as equal prizemoney in grand slams goes, i don't think there should be. Women only play 3 sets and men play 5 and women think they should get equal prizemoney, what a joke. It's a simple work hours issue, if i had a business where a male work worked 16 hours and got paid the same as a women worked for 10 hours it could be called completely outragous. As far as other tournaments go, they both play 3 sets so equal prizemoney is fine there, of course it would be based on sposnorship dollar.

I just can't believe people actually find best of 5 set tennis boring, how sad.

it's not just how many sets u play, it's the competition in women's tennis that is growing in depth & is even better than b4 so there4 i reckon women tennis players should be entitled to equal prize money. but i agree bout 5 setters though, their not all boring depends on the quality though s'times.

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:48 AM
but the way pat cash said it was absolutely disgusting.

aussie_fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:56 AM
but the way pat cash said it was absolutely disgusting.

haven't read what he has said, i'm was just going on the equal prizemoney issue.

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:59 AM
haven't read what he has said, i'm was just going on the equal prizemoney issue.

i'm confused :confused:

aussie_fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:05 AM
it's not just how many sets u play, it's the competition in women's tennis that is growing in depth & is even better than b4 so there4 i reckon women tennis players should be entitled to equal prize money. but i agree bout 5 setters though, their not all boring depends on the quality though s'times.

well it should be based on the sets you play. it's just a common fact that workers get paid on the number of hours and tennis players are professionals, it's there job. it's saying women's tennis is so much better than men's tennis, which it's not, i enjoy both kinds the same.

As far as the quality goes, they are fairly much the same, they just vary in depths. I would say the world's no.1 mens is a lot better then the women's world no.1 but as far as the top 10 goes, the women are probably ahead, the women can have a dozen or so people who could win while the mens only have a couple.

5 setters offer more surpises, they have to win 3 sets instead of two, it can make for some interesting situations. I love tennis so much though i wish it could be best of 99 sets.

aussie_fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:06 AM
i'm confused :confused:

I haven't seen what pat cash has said.

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:19 AM
I haven't seen what pat cash has said.

Hear's what he said in the article:
"It's like two guys going to work and one is getting paid £20 an hour and the other £10 an hour. Well, the one doing the better work is getting £20 an hour - and that's the male player. That's because men are on court longer than women, so what are the women moaning about?

"When I hear about it I just want to tell them to 'shut the hell up!' I think the women are overpaid. To be honest, I think they're all overpaid.

"They need to come into the real world and stop making it such a big issue ... they need to stop this cr*p and live in the real world. They're getting paid a million dollars for winning a tournament and they are moaning.

"Then you hear someone like Venus saying (he puts on a squeaky voice): 'I don't want to mention boycott', but, you know, this is someone who came from the slums in Los Angeles … come on!"

aussie_fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:24 AM
Hear's what he said in the article:
"It's like two guys going to work and one is getting paid £20 an hour and the other £10 an hour. Well, the one doing the better work is getting £20 an hour - and that's the male player. That's because men are on court longer than women, so what are the women moaning about?

"When I hear about it I just want to tell them to 'shut the hell up!' I think the women are overpaid. To be honest, I think they're all overpaid.

"They need to come into the real world and stop making it such a big issue ... they need to stop this cr*p and live in the real world. They're getting paid a million dollars for winning a tournament and they are moaning.

"Then you hear someone like Venus saying (he puts on a squeaky voice): 'I don't want to mention boycott', but, you know, this is someone who came from the slums in Los Angeles … come on!"

Yeah, they way he said that wasn't right, i agree with you on that bg017. Women aren't overpaid at all, i think they are fairly paid to be honest.

Just curious to ask, has Venus ever mentioned she would boycott?

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:28 AM
well it should be based on the sets you play. it's just a common fact that workers get paid on the number of hours and tennis players are professionals, it's there job. it's saying women's tennis is so much better than men's tennis, which it's not, i enjoy both kinds the same.

As far as the quality goes, they are fairly much the same, they just vary in depths. I would say the world's no.1 mens is a lot better then the women's world no.1 but as far as the top 10 goes, the women are probably ahead, the women can have a dozen or so people who could win while the mens only have a couple.

5 setters offer more surpises, they have to win 3 sets instead of two, it can make for some interesting situations. I love tennis so much though i wish it could be best of 99 sets.

ok u got a point.

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:35 AM
Yeah, they way he said that wasn't right, i agree with you on that bg017. Women aren't overpaid at all, i think they are fairly paid to be honest.

Just curious to ask, has Venus ever mentioned she would boycott?

i jumped to some conclusions i guess. women aren't being underpaid (i said they were underpaid in another thread) & i guess that the money their earning now is much better than a few years ago. better than nothing i suppose.

but i just don't get how the aussie & US Opens give out equal prize money to both sexes when RG & Wimbledon don't. just curious to no.

i don't think venus has ever mentioned boycotting over the issue, not from what i can hear but i could be wrong.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:40 AM
:lol: you're joking right. there can be nothing like a 5th set of tennis, the drama involved can be incredible. I wish women played 5 sets as well (for grand slam level)

As far as equal prizemoney in grand slams goes, i don't think there should be. Women only play 3 sets and men play 5 and women think they should get equal prizemoney, what a joke. It's a simple work hours issue, if i had a business where a male work worked 16 hours and got paid the same as a women worked for 10 hours it could be called completely outragous. As far as other tournaments go, they both play 3 sets so equal prizemoney is fine there, of course it would be based on sposnorship dollar.

I just can't believe people actually find best of 5 set tennis boring, how sad.

It's NOT a simple work hours issue - it's also about who's putting bums in seats!

And in your example about having a business - what if the person working less was more efficient? Does that also mean they deserve less pay than the other person? I think not.

aussie_fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:40 AM
i jumped to some conclusions i guess. women aren't being underpaid (i said they were underpaid in another thread) & i guess that the money their earning now is much better than a few years ago. better than nothing i suppose.

but i just don't get how the aussie & US Opens give out equal prize money to both sexes when RG & Wimbledon don't. just curious to no.

i don't think venus has ever mentioned boycotting over the issue, not from what i can hear but i could be wrong.

Well if you do make into that bracket of top 20 you are doing very well for yourself. Sponship dollar is out there as well.

Each Grand Slam is a seperate organization so they can choose seperately for that particular GS. I think they will all change eventually to equal just because of media pressure as well as from the players. It shouldn't happen but it will.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:45 AM
well it should be based on the sets you play. it's just a common fact that workers get paid on the number of hours and tennis players are professionals, it's there job. it's saying women's tennis is so much better than men's tennis, which it's not, i enjoy both kinds the same.

As far as the quality goes, they are fairly much the same, they just vary in depths. I would say the world's no.1 mens is a lot better then the women's world no.1 but as far as the top 10 goes, the women are probably ahead, the women can have a dozen or so people who could win while the mens only have a couple.

5 setters offer more surpises, they have to win 3 sets instead of two, it can make for some interesting situations. I love tennis so much though i wish it could be best of 99 sets.

Actually, alot of workers do not get paid on the hours they work. If you are on a salary and have to work back, you generally don't get overtime - so you could work an extra 5 hours a week than another person just to get your work done, and you'd both get the same pay!

And just because you enjoy mens and womens tennis equally doesn't mean everyone does.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:46 AM
i jumped to some conclusions i guess. women aren't being underpaid (i said they were underpaid in another thread) & i guess that the money their earning now is much better than a few years ago. better than nothing i suppose.

but i just don't get how the aussie & US Opens give out equal prize money to both sexes when RG & Wimbledon don't. just curious to no.

i don't think venus has ever mentioned boycotting over the issue, not from what i can hear but i could be wrong.

:scratch: RG does...

aussie_fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:48 AM
It's NOT a simple work hours issue - it's also about who's putting bums in seats!

And in your example about having a business - what if the person working less was more efficient? Does that also mean they deserve less pay than the other person? I think not.

Umm, how can you judge that when in grand slams you have women and mens matches happening each other on the same court. That first comment doesn't make sense.

It's still the same job. If you are doing the exact same job as someone else you expect to get paid the same amount of money for each hour. Men working more meaning they should get paid more. It's obivous.

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:51 AM
:scratch: RG does...

but only to both the men's & women's champions not the rest though.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:06 AM
Umm, how can you judge that when in grand slams you have women and mens matches happening each other on the same court. That first comment doesn't make sense.

It's still the same job. If you are doing the exact same job as someone else you expect to get paid the same amount of money for each hour. Men working more meaning they should get paid more. It's obivous.

Well you can see how many people are going to each match to start off with. And I didn't say I could judge, but there must be some way to judge objectively...or by tv ratings...something else perhaps.

OK...Where I work, there is a McDonald's next door. Some of the young workers there just got made managers. They have to do more work than their old job, on a salary, and if the work isn't finished when it's time for them to go, they have to stay back for NO EXTRA PAY. The same thing will be for me, when I get my job in travel when I finish my course. SO what you say is totally incorrect!

Do you think teachers get paid extra for all the hours overtime they do with marking exams./assignments, etc - let me tell you: they don't...and some teachers may have to take longer than others... they'd still be on the same salary;...

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:07 AM
but only to both the men's & women's champions not the rest though.

ahh ok. ;)

aussie_fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:40 AM
Well you can see how many people are going to each match to start off with. And I didn't say I could judge, but there must be some way to judge objectively...or by tv ratings...something else perhaps.

OK...Where I work, there is a McDonald's next door. Some of the young workers there just got made managers. They have to do more work than their old job, on a salary, and if the work isn't finished when it's time for them to go, they have to stay back for NO EXTRA PAY. The same thing will be for me, when I get my job in travel when I finish my course. SO what you say is totally incorrect!

Do you think teachers get paid extra for all the hours overtime they do with marking exams./assignments, etc - let me tell you: they don't...and some teachers may have to take longer than others... they'd still be on the same salary;...

But we aren't talking overtime here are we. Men are emant to play 5 sets, women are meant to play 3. People really do make this a bigger issue than it actually is, i can't see why people don't see it.

MCM
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:00 PM
5-asetters are so freaking BORING because they take so LONG! It's ok if you can just watch the last set, but the problem is, you still have the have them play the first 4 sets to! I'd prefer the men to play best of 3 at the Grand Slams!

I know what you mean; I have seen so many of these matches where sets have just been thrown away. Believe me, those have been no fun to watch (and this is coming from a huge tennis fan). I have to agree, though, that the fifth set of such matches is so often a true joy to watch.

Also, I think, if the goal is to attract more casual fans and viewers, it would be more wise to make both men's and women's tennis best of three sets in all pro level events. I know my friends that are only slightly interested in tennis usually leave after a while when watching a 5-set men's match. However, those same people did not leave when watching, for example, the Roddick-Federer match this year in Shanghai.

ToeTag
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:15 PM
Well Cash has never liked the women, and I don't really give a flying fuck if he does or not.To be honest, at the moment ,I find tennis in general, men's and women's, to be a bore!

The 5 set argument is useless. If the guys don't want to play b/5 than don't! But don't bitch, and whine that you're required to play b/5, and the chicks don't. One of the reasons the wta doesn't have b/5 is because of the usual male whining! All those years ago at Wimbledon the women's matches were changed to b/3 because the women's matches being b/5 took too long and the boys didn't want to wait for them too finish. Awwww. So the male players hectored the Wimbledon grand poobahs into changing it.

pav
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:17 PM
I don't know if this has already been mentioned in this thread but the men don't play 5 setters all season. I have often thought the slam female finals should be 5 setters. I don't think the women should get equal pay purely on a women's rights basis, only if they cut it on the entertainment front(They win that one 80/20 in my opinion)

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:54 PM
OK then imagine you spend hours doing interviews/fullfilling other commitments, and have your face plastered on billboards, on tv ads and so, and get less than someone who is not used because he's not a top player - why should you get less than him? :pThat's just the life of sportsmen, male or female. Everyone must do interviews etc. We are talking only about the tournaments prize money.

And if you are bringing in more fans than a male player, why should you be paid less? That makes no sense!
Do you have some numbers about who attracts more fans? Actually men's tennis is far more popular than women's. It's sad but it's true. Men's events usually have more spectators and media pay more attention to them. Thank God we have Eurosport in Europe.

5-asetters are so freaking BORING because they take so LONG! It's ok if you can just watch the last set, but the problem is, you still have the have them play the first 4 sets to! I'd prefer the men to play best of 3 at the Grand Slams!
That's only your humble opinion I disagree with.

btw. I don't expect anything less on women's board. I would be really surprised if more people agreed with me.

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:03 PM
All those years ago at Wimbledon the women's matches were changed to b/3 because the women's matches being b/5 took too long and the boys didn't want to wait for them too finish.
Can you tell me more about this? I know in the 60's women played best-of-three. Do you claim they'd played best-of-five before?

Lefty.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:06 PM
Can you tell me more about this? I know in the 60's women played best-of-three. Do you claim they'd played best-of-five before?

In the 90's, they tried some best of 5 matches. But they didn't work.

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:09 PM
You are so right! I remember this year's Australian Open, waiting for the clijsters/Hingis quater-final to come on. Because of the Kiefer/Grosjean match before it, they had to reschedule it. That was one of the most boring matches I've ever seen. It went for hours, and was just crap!

REDUCE MEN'S MATCHES AT GRAND SLAMS TO THREE SETS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course when you are waiting for another match you find those long five-setters boring, that is really hard to figure out. :rolleyes:
Imagine you are waiting for a mens match when girls are playing three-setter. :yawn:

iPatty
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:10 PM
to be completely honest, he has a point. not neccessarily the way he said it, but what he said.

imagine you and your friend worked at a cd store. say you worked 4 hours one day while your friend worked 2 hours. wouldn't you be upset if you got the same amount of money? it's only fair, really.

this has nothing to do with sex or quality or whatever. it has to do with workload and time spent on court.

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:24 PM
It's still the same job. If you are doing the exact same job as someone else you expect to get paid the same amount of money for each hour. Men working more meaning they should get paid more. It's obivous.
This is accurate.

@Dutchie Girl - How would you measure efficiency in Tennis?

jazar
Dec 2nd, 2006, 07:29 PM
i agree with him. he is a decent honest bloke and he wouldn't just say something to be controversial.

i like watching women's tennis because i can appreciate the talents of the players. but you can't beat a good best of five sets match. and if i'm brutally honest, many of the players in the women's game are one dimensional and just try to hit the ball as hard as possible. on the mens tour this is not always the case, you see more players slicing and volleying.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:27 PM
But we aren't talking overtime here are we. Men are emant to play 5 sets, women are meant to play 3. People really do make this a bigger issue than it actually is, i can't see why people don't see it.

It doesn't matter if it's overtime or not - it's the same thing...some people work longer for the same pay., That was my point. You were saying they don't. Well sorry, you are wrong. You could say that at Grand Slams, men have to work "overtime" by playing 5 sets. And what if a man wins his match in 3 sets, and a womans match goes to 3 sets? Then they are both still playing 3 sets. It's really not often that men end up playing 5 sets at the slams...if you look at ALL of the matches in the draw.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:29 PM
I know what you mean; I have seen so many of these matches where sets have just been thrown away. Believe me, those have been no fun to watch (and this is coming from a huge tennis fan). I have to agree, though, that the fifth set of such matches is so often a true joy to watch.

Also, I think, if the goal is to attract more casual fans and viewers, it would be more wise to make both men's and women's tennis best of three sets in all pro level events. I know my friends that are only slightly interested in tennis usually leave after a while when watching a 5-set men's match. However, those same people did not leave when watching, for example, the Roddick-Federer match this year in Shanghai.

Yeah, with 5 setter's it depends who is playing the match. The 5th set of El Anaouyi and Roddick one year at the AO was great - but I didn't have to watch the rest of the match, so then it was ok for me (I had been at the tennis that day, so I wasn't home to see most of that match).

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:32 PM
That's just the life of sportsmen, male or female. Everyone must do interviews etc. We are talking only about the tournaments prize money.


Do you have some numbers about who attracts more fans? Actually men's tennis is far more popular than women's. It's sad but it's true. Men's events usually have more spectators and media pay more attention to them. Thank God we have Eurosport in Europe.


That's only your humble opinion I disagree with.

btw. I don't expect anything less on women's board. I would be really surprised if more people agreed with me.

Not everyone has to do interviews. Players only have to do interviews if they are asked, if someone wants to interview them - and I was talking about EXTRA interviews, not ones after matches. I think the top 10 women would do more interviews than the #25 ranked guy would do.

I don't have numbers, but I have discussed this in anopther post...

It's not my HUMBLE opinion. It is my OPINION, and you can agree or disagree - I am voicing my opinion, and no, we don't agree - great - move on! :D

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:34 PM
Of course when you are waiting for another match you find those long five-setters boring, that is really hard to figure out. :rolleyes:
Imagine you are waiting for a mens match when girls are playing three-setter. :yawn:

Yeah...if you are waiting for a mens match the women only play best of 3 - it's generally less to wait than for a 5 setter! Why is it hard to figure out that some people might find 5 setter's boring? Especially if the standard of tennis is shite (and trust me, it can be). Obviously you are a guy...and people on here tend to like women's tennis, while you seem not to like it so much.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:36 PM
This is accurate.

@Dutchie Girl - How would you measure efficiency in Tennis?

The time it takes to win a set (ie if you win quicker, you are more efficient)? I'm sure there are other ways too. So what aussie fan says is NOT accurate!

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:38 PM
to be completely honest, he has a point. not neccessarily the way he said it, but what he said.

imagine you and your friend worked at a cd store. say you worked 4 hours one day while your friend worked 2 hours. wouldn't you be upset if you got the same amount of money? it's only fair, really.

this has nothing to do with sex or quality or whatever. it has to do with workload and time spent on court.

Depends on the job - see my previous posts...

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:39 PM
i agree with him. he is a decent honest bloke and he wouldn't just say something to be controversial.

i like watching women's tennis because i can appreciate the talents of the players. but you can't beat a good best of five sets match. and if i'm brutally honest, many of the players in the women's game are one dimensional and just try to hit the ball as hard as possible. on the mens tour this is not always the case, you see more players slicing and volleying.

I'm gonna assume that was sarcasm, coz otherwise you just prooved you know diddly squat about Pat Cash.

gentenaire
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:41 PM
It's still the same job. If you are doing the exact same job as someone else you expect to get paid the same amount of money for each hour. Men working more meaning they should get paid more. It's obivous.

Do you study less hard for an exam with 3 questions than an exam with 5 questions?

The thing is, the time spent on court is only a small percentage of the total amount of 'work' tennis players do. Most of the work is done out of competition, it's the hours and hours of training, years of learning before they finally start making a little money. That is the same for men and women. Women train just as much as the men. Overall, they work just as hard.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:45 PM
Do you study less hard for an exam with 3 questions than an exam with 5 questions?

The thing is, the time spent on court is only a small percentage of the total amount of 'work' tennis players do. Most of the work is done out of competition, it's the hours and hours of training, years of learning before they finally start making a little money. That is the same for men and women. Women train just as much as the men. Overall, they work just as hard.

:yeah:

Louis Cyphre
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:47 PM
for everyone who doesnt know he basically says that women tennis is overpaid and that venus and company are just whining away for asking equal money prices.
His arguments are that mens tennis is a longer event in time that women tennis is, and that atp is better quality than wta is.

in my opinion he is a moron but everyone has right to speak their minds i guess

i like tennis i watch tennis every time that i can but for me watch 5 sets of tennis is too much and so boring like the rome final with federer and nadal(4 sets actually) yes was a quality match good winners great rallies but cmon watch the same for almost 5 hours is booooring so i prefer watch womens tennis that are shorter in time, today womens tennis is growing and growing almost every match between top 50 players are great in quality and are very entertaining so f*** U Pat Cash:wavey:

Well a single match of Venus,Serena or Sharapova will bring more money to the TV then 20 matches of N3 in the world Davidenko vs N5 Nalbandian.Or if these girls are too big lets see - which match will be more interesting for people who watched tennis - Lena D vs Daniela or Davidenko vs Nalbandian.So TV and sponsors will pay much more to these girls then this Top5 mens match.So in my opinion women brings more money to the TVs and sponsors and if we have to be honest they deserve more money than the mens :lol: So fuck off Pat :devil:

Lindsayfan32
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:51 PM
Pat Cash wouldn't know Jack crap about women's tennis period. A good case in point before the 2001 Oz open he said Lindsay has the build of a shot putter. He just says thing like that for attention. He's really not worth listening to. As for the latest statement who cares what he thinks.

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:51 PM
I think the top 10 women would do more interviews than the #25 ranked guy would do.
The same counts the other way round.

DutchieGirl
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:53 PM
The same counts the other way round.

For top 10 men doing more than top 25 women? Sure - of course...but the difference is, the top 25 men make more than the top 10 women (at RG and Wimby).

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:00 PM
Do you study less hard for an exam with 3 questions than an exam with 5 questions?

The thing is, the time spent on court is only a small percentage of the total amount of 'work' tennis players do. Most of the work is done out of competition, it's the hours and hours of training, years of learning before they finally start making a little money. That is the same for men and women. Women train just as much as the men. Overall, they work just as hard.
I also study in order to find a good job and I am not paid for it, it's similar with tennis training. The training is like a studying. You do it to be better player and nobody pays you for it. Nobody benefits from your training but you (similar to studying), you do it only for yourself.

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:01 PM
For top 10 men doing more than top 25 women? Sure - of course...but the difference is, the top 25 men make more than the top 10 women (at RG and Wimby).
Because they spend more time on court at RG and Wimby.

Lunaris
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:11 PM
Yeah...if you are waiting for a mens match the women only play best of 3 - it's generally less to wait than for a 5 setter! Why is it hard to figure out that some people might find 5 setter's boring? Especially if the standard of tennis is shite (and trust me, it can be). Obviously you are a guy...and people on here tend to like women's tennis, while you seem not to like it so much.
It's not hard to figure out why some people do find the 5setters boring, actually I have already wrote it.
Sure, I don't like women's tennis, that's why I have an account on this board.

Well, you have written your arguments and I have done the same without any progress, so I propose we stop now. It's the first time I disagree with something you posted. :)

mirzalover
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:17 PM
he is a jackass and women should get paid equal.

PS most 5 set matches are boring and feature players we might see once or twice a years,( or andy roddick) plus when the last time anybody really sat down and watched a five set match from the first point to the last

gentenaire
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:29 PM
I also study in order to find a good job and I am not paid for it, it's similar with tennis training. The training is like a studying. You do it to be better player and nobody pays you for it. Nobody benefits from your training but you (similar to studying), you do it only for yourself.

A higher degree will get you a better paid job, so there is a relation between training and pay. In the case of tennis players, their training is directly related to their job. Once you have a job, your boss will pay for you training. The hours you spend training will be paid for by the company.

Let's use another analogy. Are movie tickets higher for films that took three months to produce compared to films that too only one month? Actors aren't paid according the hours they spend on set but according to the number of people they can seduce to watch the film. Why should it be different with tennis players?

Ben.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:34 PM
OK, let's just say this. women r getting paid much better than what they use to be. enough said.

Derek.
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:34 PM
I'm in the middle.

I can see Cash's point about men having to play five-setters at the slams so then they should get paid more, but then again as others said it's quality, not quantity.

:shrug:

Neptune
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:33 PM
I'm a girl so you can't call me "a macho" but you have to realize that men play more I agree with him.
In terms of exposition in the media, Womens are more exposed. And again,it depends. I found the idea a litle bit absurd, they paid so much compared to the others sports and they want more! :eek:

Joana
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:50 PM
Time spent on court is a retarded argument. First of all, it is not given that a men's match will always last longer than a woman's one. Men don't have to play five-setters all the time. It is possible to win a match in straight sets in men's tennis, too. Then, the duration of a match alone says absolutely nothing about its quality or the amount of energy that was put into it. Women can agree to trade loopy shots for 5 hours and claim that they should be paid more than men if that's the case. Finally, does Federer deserve equal pay? He usually demolishes his opponents in early rounds and doesn't spend too much time on court. It's not fair that he gets as much as two scrubs who couldn't figure out how to beat each other before 56-54 in the 5th set.

There are arguments against equal pay but time spent on court alone is not one of them.

Joana
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:53 PM
Do you study less hard for an exam with 3 questions than an exam with 5 questions?


Not only that, you see, stupid students will need more time to prepare for an exam, it's only fair that they be given higher marks than those who don't need to study as much!

DutchieGirl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:24 AM
Because they spend more time on court at RG and Wimby.

:rolleyes: They do at AO and USO too - but they can see fit to give equal prizemoney.

DutchieGirl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:27 AM
I also study in order to find a good job and I am not paid for it, it's similar with tennis training. The training is like a studying. You do it to be better player and nobody pays you for it. Nobody benefits from your training but you (similar to studying), you do it only for yourself.

You study so you can get a better job with more pay - players train so they cna win more and get more money...men and women players would train just as much as each other, so what you say is incorrect. YOU benefit from your studying by being able to get a better job in the long run. More study = better pay (normally)...as the men and women train just as hard as each other, the men really only play best of 5 sets at Grand Slams, and not even at normal tourneys, I don't see what the big problem is.

DutchieGirl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:28 AM
It's not hard to figure out why some people do find the 5setters boring, actually I have already wrote it.
Sure, I don't like women's tennis, that's why I have an account on this board.

Well, you have written your arguments and I have done the same without any progress, so I propose we stop now. It's the first time I disagree with something you posted. :)

I already suggested that we stop before, but you seem to want to keep debating so...

DutchieGirl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:31 AM
I'm a girl so you can't call me "a macho" but you have to realize that men play more I agree with him.
In terms of exposition in the media, Womens are more exposed. And again,it depends. I found the idea a litle bit absurd, they paid so much compared to the others sports and they want more! :eek:

Men hardly ever play more... only GS's are best of 5. All other events are normal, and look at most of the scores from GSs there aren't that many 5 setters...alot of 3 set matches.

DutchieGirl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:32 AM
Not only that, you see, stupid students will need more time to prepare for an exam, it's only fair that they be given higher marks than those who don't need to study as much!

:spit: :haha:

drake3781
Dec 3rd, 2006, 07:49 AM
The argument that men play more sets is meaningless to me.

Tennis pay must be based on income to the tournament and tour.

If the market bears a higher prize money for the men's tour, so be it.

But at majors when the men and women play together, it's not possible or correct to separate out who the crowd is there to see. The crowd is there to enjoy the combination of both tours. In those cases - at majors - the prize money should be equal. And that goes for all prize money, not just winner's prizes.

DutchieGirl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 08:18 AM
The argument that men play more sets is meaningless to me.

Tennis pay must be based on income to the tournament and tour.

If the market bears a higher prize money for the men's tour, so be it.

But at majors when the men and women play together, it's not possible or correct to separate out who the crowd is there to see. The crowd is there to enjoy the combination of both tours. In those cases - at majors - the prize money should be equal. And that goes for all prize money, not just winner's prizes.

What about at all joint tourneys then? ;) I think that's fair.

drake3781
Dec 3rd, 2006, 08:26 AM
What about at all joint tourneys then? ;) I think that's fair.


Yeah, I guess that's what I mean. What are the joint tourneys, anyway?


AO
Miami?
French
Wimbledon
USO
what others?

DutchieGirl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 08:41 AM
Yeah, I guess that's what I mean. What are the joint tourneys, anyway?


AO
Miami?
French
Wimbledon
USO
what others?

Yeah, Miami - IW too right? There are some others too, like Sydney, Rosmalen... ;)

jazar
Dec 3rd, 2006, 10:14 AM
I'm gonna assume that was sarcasm, coz otherwise you just prooved you know diddly squat about Pat Cash.

i know pat cash personally and i respect his opinion cos he is right

Louis Cyphre
Dec 3rd, 2006, 10:47 AM
i know pat cash personally and i respect his opinion cos he is right

can you tell me why he is right or its just coz you "know pat cash personally" :tape:

aussie_fan
Dec 3rd, 2006, 11:26 AM
What about at all joint tourneys then? ;) I think that's fair.

At other joint tournaments outside of GS should be equal prizemoney, i agree with that, they both play the same amount of sets. It's Grand Slams where it's different.

aussie_fan
Dec 3rd, 2006, 11:32 AM
You study so you can get a better job with more pay - players train so they cna win more and get more money...men and women players would train just as much as each other, so what you say is incorrect. YOU benefit from your studying by being able to get a better job in the long run. More study = better pay (normally)...as the men and women train just as hard as each other, the men really only play best of 5 sets at Grand Slams, and not even at normal tourneys, I don't see what the big problem is.

Training is not benfeiting the tournaments. You don't pay for someone for training, you pay them for their matchplay and how much they bring to the fans. Considering men play 5 sets over 3 sets that women played, men are playing more and enitited to more money.

Ben.
Dec 3rd, 2006, 11:39 AM
Training is not benfeiting the tournaments. You don't pay for someone for training, you pay them for their matchplay and how much they bring to the fans. Considering men play 5 sets over 3 sets that women played, men are playing more and enitited to more money.

yeah true. but without training how do players get where they r today with the ever increasing levels of fitness to be a tennis player.

aussie_fan
Dec 3rd, 2006, 11:45 AM
yeah true. but without training how do players get where they r today with the ever increasing levels of fitness to be a tennis player.

well you can't, but that isn't the responsibility of Grand Slam organizations

Ben.
Dec 3rd, 2006, 11:51 AM
well you can't, but that isn't the responsibility of Grand Slam organizations

it's pretty much the player's responsibility i guess. but some female players get paid more than the men though through endorsements & other stuff so i guess it really depends on the individual.

Neptune
Dec 3rd, 2006, 12:13 PM
Men hardly ever play more... only GS's are best of 5. All other events are normal, and look at most of the scores from GSs there aren't that many 5 setters...alot of 3 set matches.

Yea,good argument. I wasn't thinking in that way, only counting the Gc but that's true the others parts of the year they're playing alot of 2 set matches. ;)

saki
Dec 3rd, 2006, 12:28 PM
If it's about time on court then, surely, you should be paid per game? So, if you win 6-0, 6-0, you should get paid less than if you win 7-6, 7-6. It would be quite funny to watch the top players try to give away a few games to get more money..

Seriously, though, it's about how much money you bring in. (Also for TV rights as well as tickets.) That's hard to tell with Slams, obviously, but it could be worked out for other tournaments. Especially the tournaments where they have both an ATP and a WTA event, just on separate weeks. That would give you some idea of what sort of draw the women are compared to the men.

meyerpl
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:41 PM
I agree with him. I don't like the way how he puted it, but generally he is right. Imagine that you spend 12 hours working and someone who spend for example 8 hours working (doing the same work) is payed equaly. Would you be happy with it or would you protest? The answer is quite obvious. It has nothing to do with quality, the men just work more and therefore should be payed more. I am talking only about the Slams of course, other tournaments are utterly different matter and the prize money there should be equal - but this depends on sponsoring and other issues.

btw. Five-setters are usually the best matches of the year, it's a pity that you find them boring. Mainly the last sets are usually extraordinary. ;)
So, obviously a boxer who K.O.'s his opponent in the 1st or 2nd round deservers to be paid less than a boxer who wins by decision.

Lunaris
Dec 3rd, 2006, 06:06 PM
So, obviously a boxer who K.O.'s his opponent in the 1st or 2nd round deservers to be paid less than a boxer who wins by decision.
Not the best example. :lol: But you are entitled to your opinion. I am not gonna get involved in this pointless discussion again. :)

terjw
Dec 3rd, 2006, 08:47 PM
I agree with quite a bit on what Pat Cash says.

The fact that the top women players are doing pretty well finacially. Just compare what they earn and the difference between the men and women in other sports. The reason the women are doing well in tennis is almost totally due to the fact that they heve tournaments - especially the slams - in which the men and women play at the same place at the same time. The women gain from this much more than the men do. And there is very little difference in prizemoney between the women and men at Wimbledon now to make much difference anyway.

For all their wanting equal prizemoney I don't see them ever boycotting now - like BJK did. They just stand to lose so much more nowadays than they could ever possibly gain from a boycott. If you were to hold the men and women's events separately you'd get far less turning up for the women than the men. Just look at the turnouts where they do have their sepate events. So why should it be any different where both the men and women are present.

I mean there is very little in the papers on the women compared with the men - and very little on BBC on the women's matches. The papers are out to boost their circulation. If there was this huge interest in the women - surely they'd cover them more. The people I know who go to Wimbledon want to see the top men play. If not then OK they'll settle to see a top women player in preference to a lowly men's match. They are there - so they'll watch a woman's match if it is on rather than give up a seat say on court 13, 14, 17 or 18.

I don't agree with Pat Cash about the 5 setters - I don't agree that since they play longer they should get paid. I like others just find these matches tooo looong.

What I do think though is that the quality of the matches particularly in the first week of a slam is much lower in the women's game. And there are far more women's matches riddled with unforced errors compared to the men. It is much harder for the top men to make it into the second week than the women. So I can understand why Pat Cash thinks it's right that they should be paid more.

DutchieGirl
Dec 4th, 2006, 03:57 AM
i know pat cash personally and i respect his opinion cos he is right

:haha: And I'm meant to believe that?

DutchieGirl
Dec 4th, 2006, 03:58 AM
At other joint tournaments outside of GS should be equal prizemoney, i agree with that, they both play the same amount of sets. It's Grand Slams where it's different.

But at the other tourneys they have their own tours, and therefore their own sponsors... ;)

DutchieGirl
Dec 4th, 2006, 03:59 AM
Training is not benfeiting the tournaments. You don't pay for someone for training, you pay them for their matchplay and how much they bring to the fans. Considering men play 5 sets over 3 sets that women played, men are playing more and enitited to more money.

No, training's not benefitting the tournaments at all - let's just make up a grand slam full of tennis players who never trained a day in their life... :rolleyes: DOn't be ridiculous - of course training is benefitting the tournament, how the hell else do the players get to play as well as they do? :haha:

DutchieGirl
Dec 4th, 2006, 04:01 AM
If it's about time on court then, surely, you should be paid per game? So, if you win 6-0, 6-0, you should get paid less than if you win 7-6, 7-6. It would be quite funny to watch the top players try to give away a few games to get more money..

Seriously, though, it's about how much money you bring in. (Also for TV rights as well as tickets.) That's hard to tell with Slams, obviously, but it could be worked out for other tournaments. Especially the tournaments where they have both an ATP and a WTA event, just on separate weeks. That would give you some idea of what sort of draw the women are compared to the men.

It is worked out at other tournaments...the men and women have money difference on their individual tours. ;)

aussie_fan
Dec 4th, 2006, 04:08 AM
No, training's not benefitting the tournaments at all - let's just make up a grand slam full of tennis players who never trained a day in their life... :rolleyes: DOn't be ridiculous - of course training is benefitting the tournament, how the hell else do the players get to play as well as they do? :haha:

but the tournaments are paying for the players services, which is the actual matchplay. Players training is not what the fans have come to see.

aussie_fan
Dec 4th, 2006, 04:10 AM
But at the other tourneys they have their own tours, and therefore their own sponsors... ;)

yeah, true. That will affect it, but you get what i mean.

DutchieGirl
Dec 4th, 2006, 04:12 AM
but the tournaments are paying for the players services, which is the actual matchplay. Players training is not what the fans have come to see.

True, but if no players trained, then the tennis would be shite and no one would come to watch anyway - so...

DutchieGirl
Dec 4th, 2006, 04:14 AM
yeah, true. That will affect it, but you get what i mean.

Yes, and I actually think they should have tried to get more equality on the normal tour first, because then they don't have to deal with the "oh but they play 5 sets" issue...but :shrug: they pick their own battles.

aussie_fan
Dec 4th, 2006, 04:45 AM
True, but if no players trained, then the tennis would be shite and no one would come to watch anyway - so...

yeah, that would be true but it isn't the tournament organizers to tell the players to train.

Don't think the players would be stupid enough to not train anyway, it would be a different world if they didn't. :)

DutchieGirl
Dec 5th, 2006, 03:58 AM
yeah, that would be true but it isn't the tournament organizers to tell the players to train.

Don't think the players would be stupid enough to not train anyway, it would be a different world if they didn't. :)

yeah, we'd only have shitty tennis to watch. No it's not up to the tourneament organizers to tell the players to trai, but obviously it's in their interest if the players DO train, because if they don't, you end up with shite tennis - as I said before. And if you end up with shite tennis, people won't watch, and the tournament loses money. ;) Quite simple really.

aussie_fan
Dec 5th, 2006, 04:07 AM
yeah, we'd only have shitty tennis to watch. No it's not up to the tourneament organizers to tell the players to trai, but obviously it's in their interest if the players DO train, because if they don't, you end up with shite tennis - as I said before. And if you end up with shite tennis, people won't watch, and the tournament loses money. ;) Quite simple really.

then it's the players fault for not training and creating the crap tennis. We end up in one stupid circle.

DutchieGirl
Dec 5th, 2006, 04:12 AM
then it's the players fault for not training and creating the crap tennis. We end up in one stupid circle.

Yes, but if players aren't getting rewarded with something for training (ie as people who study more get better jobs), they why would they want to train? That's the whole point. ;) And as men and women train just as hard, then it's fair if they get rewarded for that. ;)

aussie_fan
Dec 5th, 2006, 04:25 AM
Yes, but if players aren't getting rewarded with something for training (ie as people who study more get better jobs), they why would they want to train? That's the whole point. ;) And as men and women train just as hard, then it's fair if they get rewarded for that. ;)

Again, it isn't the tournaments job to pay them for their training. They are paying for their services that they provide for that tournament. Men play more sets than women therefore working more than women do.

I think this arguement is getting pointless.

DutchieGirl
Dec 5th, 2006, 05:29 AM
Again, it isn't the tournaments job to pay them for their training. They are paying for their services that they provide for that tournament. Men play more sets than women therefore working more than women do.

I think this arguement is getting pointless.

The argument was pointless about 5 pages ago (and yes, I know how many pages the thread is ;) )...and I still don't agree with you about the more sets = more work...and what you say about training isn't right either - as I have said about 10 times now ;). But let's leave it at that. ;)

Martian Stacey
Dec 5th, 2006, 08:28 AM
Again, it isn't the tournaments job to pay them for their training. They are paying for their services that they provide for that tournament. Men play more sets than women therefore working more than women do.

I think this arguement is getting pointless.
But men don't always play more sets. They only play best of 5 at the grand slams and in masters series finals.

Even when they do play best of 5 verses women playing best of 3, there is no guarantee that the mens match will be longer. You could have someone like Roger Federer demolish another player 6-1 6-0 6-1 and meanwhile another womens match may be a longer three setter.

G~Playa
Dec 5th, 2006, 08:32 AM
yer...

Shimizu Amon
Dec 5th, 2006, 08:39 AM
I do not agree with him.
I believe that women deserve the same price money as men do.
Because the games are as attractive as any match of the men, perhaps even more attractive.
And women these days train as hard as men do, so there's no difference to me.

dania
Dec 5th, 2006, 09:03 AM
I don`t think we should look at this from the top players point of view,the difference doesn`t affect players like Venus or Maria(they probably win more money from commercials than most of the male players anyway),but the lower ranked players.Tennis is a pretty expensive sport and it only pays off if you`re a top player.

aussie_fan
Dec 5th, 2006, 12:09 PM
But men don't always play more sets. They only play best of 5 at the grand slams and in masters series finals.

Even when they do play best of 5 verses women playing best of 3, there is no guarantee that the mens match will be longer. You could have someone like Roger Federer demolish another player 6-1 6-0 6-1 and meanwhile another womens match may be a longer three setter.

we were talking grand slams here.

Men still will play more sets easily, you're not going to get 7 seven straight long 3 set matches for women or 7 straight set wins in mens. You are still playing best out of 5 for men and best out of 3 for women, it will work out.