PDA

View Full Version : Cash: Men Should Earn More Than Women


tennisIlove09
May 19th, 2005, 05:26 AM
Cash: Men Should Earn More Than Women
http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/WimbledonMOVIE.jpg
By Tennis Week
05/18/2005

Pat Cash celebrated his 1987 Wimbledon win by climbing into the stands to hug his father and today Cash embraced the All England Club's policy of paying men more prize money than women at Wimbledon. Citing the fact men's matches tend to be longer and more physically demanding, Cash said men deserve to earn more than women because they work harder.
"Look at the way men play. They play tougher tennis, which is much more competitive," Cash told the media at a press conference in India organized by the Bengal Tennis Academy. "They play more sets and most of the matches run for longer period of time. So it is only obvious they only deserve to earn more. Look at the final in the recently concluded Italian Open. It went on for five-and-half hours. I have nothing against women's tennis. It is just that men work harder and deserve to earn more."

Mourning the demise of the serve-and-volley style he played, Cash said serve-and-volleyers have become an endangered species.

"Tennis has changed a lot over the years. Since my playing days and now, it's a very different game and the approach to it is very different," Cash said. "Look at the height and strength of the players. Now it is a power game. It's not as pretty as before, but certainly more effective. The players serve better than ever before. But we don't see many players volleying. It's almost a lost art."

Three of the four majors were once played on grass. Cash points to Wimbledon ss the lone Grand Slam staged on grass as well as the fact top players seldom play doubles anymore as the primary reasons for the growth of baseliners and the demise of serve-and-volley tennis.

"The future of grass court is Wimbledon, unless the grass stops growing," Cash says. "It is the biggest tournament on grass and it will remain that way. Actually, grass courts are expensive to maintain. It is much easier to lay the clay courts. Nowadays, players stress more on playing singles. This is not very good for world tennis. But I guess it's going to be that way."

skanky~skanketta
May 19th, 2005, 05:30 AM
he needs to be shot in the fucking head.

are u telling me that people actually sit through 5 set matches?cuz i know i cant, it'd get too mind-numbing.

more competitive? gimme a break!that explains why the drama is all on the women's side.:rolleyes:

anyway, what about doubles? they dont always play best of 5 now do they. even singles. wtf? the one that draws in the crowd and tv ratings need to be paid more.

Mana
May 19th, 2005, 05:40 AM
he needs to be shot in the fucking head.

are u telling me that people actually sit through 5 set matches?cuz i know i cant, it'd get too mind-numbing.

more competitive? gimme a break!that explains why the drama is all on the women's side.:rolleyes:

anyway, what about doubles? they dont always play best of 5 now do they. even singles. wtf? the one that draws in the crowd and tv ratings need to be paid more.

:angel: You took the words rite out of my mouth! :devil:

Crazy Canuck
May 19th, 2005, 05:45 AM
are u telling me that people actually sit through 5 set matches?

MANY people do. Clearly you don't because you're clearly not a huge fan of mens tennis. And that's fine. For what it's worth I can't sit through more than 30 minutes of tennis without getting up to pace around and do something else at the same time unless it's a rivetting match. If it's a great match I don't really care how long it is.

That said, Pat Cash blows. I don't have a problem with somebody sounding off about how the men "deserve to be paid more" as long as it's a sound argument. Pat Cash has made sexist remarks in the past so it goes without saying what his motivation is.

vogus
May 19th, 2005, 05:46 AM
The men have a shitty deal, because they play 50% longer matches at Wimbly, yet make only 1% more money.

I agree with what Cash is saying. But the best solution for everybody would be to cut the men's matches to best of 3 and give equal money. The ATP needs to get wise the the fact the men are getting screwed. Why should they have to play best of five at the USO, when the women only play best of three and make exactly the same pay?

Greenout
May 19th, 2005, 05:50 AM
The men have a shitty deal, because they play 50% longer matches at Wimbly, yet make only 1% more money.

I agree with what Cash is saying. But the best solution for everybody would be to cut the men's matches to best of 3 and give equal money.

Look about working hard, he sites Nadal at the Italian Open;
but what about JHH playing 9 sets of tennis in 2 days at
the German Open. Didn't Federer breeze thru his matches
at Hamburg?

The sad thing is he's saying this in India and is coming soon
to Singapore spewing his sexist 1930's crap to countries that
think he's giving them tennis knowledge.

*We're in the modern world now. Like cricket, tennis was
a rich person's sport. The crowd who came to matches
were so well off that they didn't have jobs. They could sit
and eat strawberries, drink for 5 hours. Now we can barely
sit still waiting on the internet for 2 minutes. Nobody has
the time for 5 hour tennis matches. Cash is still trying to
hold onto the facade that men's tennis is better than women's
tennis. I'm sure there's thousands of people out there that
prefer 40 minutes of Maria than 4 hours of Jiri Novak. Tennis
isn't carpentry labour- it's sport and entertainment for
the masses. High end matches is what people want! Highlight
clip stuff. Some people have lives that need to go on,
and following 1 men's 5 hour match daily at WIMBLEDON isn't
the plan.

JLDementieva
May 19th, 2005, 05:55 AM
Eat shit and die Cash!

vogus
May 19th, 2005, 06:01 AM
The sad thing is he's saying this in India and is coming soon
to Singapore spewing his sexist 1930's crap to countries that
think he's giving them tennis knowledge.


yeah but Cash didnt say anything sexist.

Rich Krajcek calling the women fat lazy pigs, now THAT was sexist.

Greenout
May 19th, 2005, 06:09 AM
yeah but Cash didnt say anything sexist.

Rich Krajcek calling the women fat lazy pigs, now THAT was sexist.


Well.. what pisses me off about WIMBLEDON is the hypocrisy
of it all. If women get paid less, why are the tickets all the same
price? Shouldn't Maria matches be less than Nalbandian matches?

And what about the webiste. They charge a fee to see video
highlights of past WIMBLEDONs. Should the price be cheaper
for Serena' match highlights (since, it's so short!) and if
a players charisma or star power isn't important why even
have the Venus or Steffi matches? Why not put only Pat Cash
or Sampras matches? See it's bullshit- and they know it and
exploit it, yet are such skinflints that they refuse to pay the
women the same prize money.


Look at it in terms of pop music. Should Beyonce get paid
less for singing/dancing for 1 and 1/2s than unknown Brit
singer that sings for 5 hours! :tape: It's unthinkable and
insane, right? Well..tennis is like pop music now- people
want to see their favorite player, and not journeymen
workaholics play for 5 hours.

vogus
May 19th, 2005, 06:18 AM
Greeny, youre missing the point. The men are the ones who really get screwed here because they have to play all those extra sets. Simple solution. Get rid of the 5 set matches. Get rid of the token 1 percent extra prize money for the men. End of problem.

1jackson2001
May 19th, 2005, 07:29 AM
I may be in the minority here since this is a women's tennis board, but I do enjoy five set matches. :) I feel some of the women's matches end too quickly (I've got nothing against women's tennis) and if the tennis is great...the longer the better! (Unless of course I want my fave players to win ;)) I follow both tours and am a big fan of the game but I can see what Pat is saying.

Solution? Make the women play best of 5 at the slams too. :devil:;)

Crazy Canuck
May 19th, 2005, 07:37 AM
yeah but Cash didnt say anything sexist.

Rich Krajcek calling the women fat lazy pigs, now THAT was sexist.
Didn't Cash compare Davenport to a shot putter (when she was at the top of the game) and complain that most of the women's tour was out of shape based on that? :shrug:

CooCooCachoo
May 19th, 2005, 07:49 AM
Pat Cash almost seems to want to bring up that if you work more hours, you must get paid for those extra hours :shrug: Just because men's matches last longer, doesn't mean they have to get paid more IMO. It also doesn't mean that they have to work harder.

Anyways, I just wonder what he had been smoking :smoke:

hollywood7172
May 19th, 2005, 07:53 AM
just another case of the old, retired tennis player saying something outrageous to again be in the spotlight. for 5 seconds.

next.

Mr_Molik
May 19th, 2005, 07:55 AM
i think he is a fuckhead but i agree with him

BUBI
May 19th, 2005, 08:09 AM
This is a free world and free market. It doesn't matter who's working hard and who's not. All that matters is what people want to see. Perhaps women shpould be paid more.

Miranda
May 19th, 2005, 08:17 AM
i don't agree with many of his comments, but even i am a woman, i do think men deserve to earn more in grand slams coz they play longer hours and more sets :wavey:

tennisrox
May 19th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Sexist bastard! :mad: I agree that men play longer, and though i love men's tennis too, the fact is that unless its a match involving the top players, no-one wants to sit through a five set match.Who the heck wants to watch 5 hours of Rochus vs Tilstrom???I wouldn't mind 5 hours of Fed vs Safin, but there are hundreds of uninteresting players on the men's side that i don't give two hoots about.And its not the women's fault that they are genetically different from men.They put in just as much work as men, for their build.And women tennis players often make a huge sacrifice on the family front.They don't have time to get married and have kids and stuff till they are done with tennis in many cases.But tennis doesn't stop poeple like Coria from having it all.What an Asshole Cash is.Eat mud! :fiery: Women's tennis is pretty darn interesting in its own way.The rallies are usually much longer than on the men's side.On the men's side half the time, they serve 4 aces and the game's done in 50 seconds!!The women did offer to play 5 sets a few years back, but their suggestion was turned down.So just shut up!!!He's just jealous b/c there are more young men salivating over a sharapova match, than women falling over to watch him play. :rolleyes:

DutchieGirl
May 19th, 2005, 10:26 AM
yeah keep going Cashy...make me hate you even more! The only time I'd gree with men getting more money than the women is in the Grand Slams, because then the men DO play more tennis! But then again, womens tennis is still brining in the fans so... ;)

hablo
May 19th, 2005, 10:27 AM
:retard:

:smash:

:rolleyes:

hablo
May 19th, 2005, 10:32 AM
The men have a shitty deal, because they play 50% longer matches at Wimbly, yet make only 1% more money.

I agree with what Cash is saying. But the best solution for everybody would be to cut the men's matches to best of 3 and give equal money. The ATP needs to get wise the the fact the men are getting screwed. Why should they have to play best of five at the USO, when the women only play best of three and make exactly the same pay?

plus 5 setters aren't necessarily better quality matches. :angel:

and is a best of 5 winner more of a winner than a best of 3 match winner ????? (I know my sentence is awkward but I hope people get my point??? :tape: ) :bounce:

azza
May 19th, 2005, 10:32 AM
It doesnt really matter if WE enjoy the tennis i mean even if its Stephaek Vs Novak and Novak wins 7-6 5-7 4-6 7-6 7-5 i mean of coarse these guys deserve more money just coz the public doesnt enjoy it there hard work and dedication doesnt get rewarded? :confused:

moby
May 19th, 2005, 10:41 AM
To everyone who thinks WTA is infinitely more popular than ATP, I've to tell you that that's just not true. There are a lot of people who take the ATP seriously, and think the WTA is crap.

It's not like all WTA 3 setters are better than all ATP 5 setters, as many of you are suggesting.

tennisrox
May 19th, 2005, 10:41 AM
It doesnt really matter if WE enjoy the tennis i mean even if its Stephaek Vs Novak and Novak wins 7-6 5-7 4-6 7-6 7-5 i mean of coarse these guys deserve more money just coz the public doesnt enjoy it there hard work and dedication doesnt get rewarded? :confused:

The fact that the ATP earns so much money and is able to pay the men so much, is only because of the viewers.If the viewers aren't interested theres no question of getting paid more.Its a consumers market.Hard work or no hard work, if you can't pull the crowds in, you won't get paid.Maybe some of the men deserve to have multi-million dollar contracts rather than someone like Maria, coz they 'work harder', but the fact is that Maria is more of a crowd-puller than they are so tough luck.Thats life.I'm not a tennis pro.But i work pretty hard at my job.Does it mean that i should get paid more than they do?

tennisrox
May 19th, 2005, 10:53 AM
To everyone who thinks WTA is infinitely more popular than ATP, I've to tell you that that's just not true. There are a lot of people who take the ATP seriously, and think the WTA is crap.

It's not like all WTA 3 setters are better than all ATP 5 setters, as many of you are suggesting.

There are also a lot of people (i hate to admit), who are more interested in watching legs, and who think the ATP is crap;)The WTA does have a huge market in its own way.Plus there is a lot more drama and rivalries in womens tennis.

Sam's Slave
May 19th, 2005, 10:56 AM
if men should earn more than women then men should start to play better than women....

moby
May 19th, 2005, 10:58 AM
if men should earn more than women then men should start to play better than women....:retard:

I'll be nice and give you a chance. Define "play better".

BUBI
May 19th, 2005, 11:00 AM
:retard:

Define "play better".
To play more entertaining tennis :) I'm not sure which one is more entertaining tennis, it depends too much on a match.

BUBI
May 19th, 2005, 11:01 AM
There are also a lot of people (i hate to admit), who are more interested in watching legs, and who think the ATP is crap;)The WTA does have a huge market in its own way.Plus there is a lot more drama and rivalries in womens tennis.
:o You are so right...

vutt
May 19th, 2005, 11:22 AM
But mens tennis is generally more powerful, faster, athletic...
Thats why viewers are paying more. People are spoken. One can't pay more if there are no money. If you think it's correct to take money from mens tennis and give it to women then...

DutchieGirl
May 19th, 2005, 11:26 AM
Well I would only go see very few mens tennis matches at any tourney I go to. I'd far rather watch womens tennis...I have my 2 mens sports (basketball and AFL). :D

bis2806
May 19th, 2005, 11:31 AM
I remember he insulted Lindsay some time ago and this guy is seriously getting on nerves. Just stay away!

greenfunkTHREE.
May 19th, 2005, 11:56 AM
MANY people do. Clearly you don't because you're clearly not a huge fan of mens tennis. And that's fine. For what it's worth I can't sit through more than 30 minutes of tennis without getting up to pace around and do something else at the same time unless it's a rivetting match. If it's a great match I don't really care how long it is.

That said, Pat Cash blows. I don't have a problem with somebody sounding off about how the men "deserve to be paid more" as long as it's a sound argument. Pat Cash has made sexist remarks in the past so it goes without saying what his motivation is.

tsk!

CooCooCachoo
May 19th, 2005, 12:04 PM
The fair point that should be raised is that players in general should earn less than they do. The top players, at least. They get ridiculous sums of money for winning tournaments, whereas journeymen and women can hardly pay for their expenses. What about allocating the prize money differently, so it is fairer?

Ravsieg
May 19th, 2005, 12:10 PM
That is twice against men. Not only they have to work harder and play for longer, but also they have to bear the fact that no-one's going to care, and everyone is saying they shouldn't be paid more because it's boring.

Yes most times it's really boring, but THEY PLAY FOR LONGER AND WORK HARDER EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE DON'T CARE BECAUSE IT'S BORING.

Come on... that's like saying a janitor doesn't deserve to receive as much as a phone caller, because his job is disgusting! >_> I know it doesn't make sense. Neither did you.

catkey94
May 19th, 2005, 12:24 PM
Even though I love women's tennis and I am a woman, I still think that its not fair that the men get the same prize money and they have to play more tennis. I think that if they want to pay equal prize money then the men should be able to play 3 set matches just like the women. Its only fair.

tennisrox
May 19th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Who cares if the men have to play for longer????Tennis is supposed to be entertainment, and spectators don't care who puts in more work.They want to be entertained.Its the audience that is providing their salaries.A lot of movie makers cut their movies from 2 and a half hours to 1 and a half hours because they know the limits of the movie-goers patience.Do you think you should have to sit through the extra one hour just because a lot of people have put in a lot of work to make it?Tennis is ENTERTAINMENT!Anyway, tennis players in general are overpaid.I work longer hours than they do, but no-ones gonna give me a big fat paycheck for that:(

Pureracket
May 19th, 2005, 12:29 PM
The men may or may not play longer. That's not the point. The womens game and the mens games are two different products. Like a poster said earlier, we pay the same prices @ the Grand Slams, and I will assure you that on @ least half of the days, the women are the main attraction.

Even if the WTA implemented a 5 set rule @ Slams (which, believe or not, women are capable of playing), there would still be an excuse to pay them less. That's why I think the US and the AO are the class of the Slams right now. They pay equally.

switz
May 19th, 2005, 12:35 PM
i don't necessarily disagree with everything he says but he is such an attention whore. his achievements in the game weren't enough to keep in the spotlight for the rest of time so now he needs to make a "controversial" statements about women or philippoussis or john newcombe every few years. he always has something to say and most of the time it's something nobody wants to hear.

on the issue of pay it should be determined by who the crowds are there to watch and who is attracting the tv networks and sponsorship dollars.

using the length of time they play is stupid - it's like saying cricket players should earn much more than basketballers because they play for 5 days :rolleyes:

graf_fan_
May 19th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Well.. what pisses me off about WIMBLEDON is the hypocrisy
of it all. If women get paid less, why are the tickets all the same
price? Shouldn't Maria matches be less than Nalbandian matches?

And what about the webiste. They charge a fee to see video
highlights of past WIMBLEDONs. Should the price be cheaper
for Serena' match highlights (since, it's so short!) and if
a players charisma or star power isn't important why even
have the Venus or Steffi matches? Why not put only Pat Cash
or Sampras matches? See it's bullshit- and they know it and
exploit it, yet are such skinflints that they refuse to pay the
women the same prize money.


Look at it in terms of pop music. Should Beyonce get paid
less for singing/dancing for 1 and 1/2s than unknown Brit
singer that sings for 5 hours! :tape: It's unthinkable and
insane, right? Well..tennis is like pop music now- people
want to see their favorite player, and not journeymen
workaholics play for 5 hours.

well said.

now i can just sit back and rest!

bee
May 19th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Well.. who told the men to play more sets....
Can't they play best of 3 sets liked the women do... iin the slams....

cynicole
May 19th, 2005, 02:03 PM
i don't necessarily disagree with everything he says but he is such an attention whore. his achievements in the game weren't enough to keep in the spotlight for the rest of time so now he needs to make a "controversial" statements about women or philippoussis or john newcombe every few years.


If Pat Cash never won that one Wimbledon, would people care the slightest bit about what he had to say?

Likewise, would some players have bothered choosing him to be their coach or would he have been able to sell an autobiography?

I've said it before on this board: If I could take away one slam from one person, it would be Cash's.

GoDominique
May 19th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Men: We Should Get More Cash Than Women! :)

griffin
May 19th, 2005, 02:32 PM
I was under the impression that despite (some of) the Slams and IW evening out the prize money, men DO earn more than women: that the prize money (plus fees) at non-Slam events (where in fact they only play 3 sets) was quite higher for the men, and that this was also true of endorsements on the whole?

I admit I haven't looked at the figures recently, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

TonyP
May 19th, 2005, 02:32 PM
There is something to be said about equal pay for equal work. The person who puts in an eight hour day usually deserves to get paid more than the person who puts in a four hour day.

And do women's matches sit more fans in the stands? Do they outdraw men's matches on television?

I'm not sure that is the case? At Wimbledon, the organizers claim it is NOT the case.

Is equal prize money really anything more than political correctness?

Experimentee
May 19th, 2005, 03:03 PM
Prize money should be determined by who the public and sponsors are willing to pay for, not how long they play.
And anyway, men only play longer than women because they are more physically capable of it. Since men are generally fitter it would not take as much effort for a man to play 5 sets as for a woman to play 5 sets. I enjoy women's tennis, but I also enjoy 5 setters (although I wouldnt sit thru a whole 5 setter unless it was an excellent match). I dont think anything should change, except all prize money should be equal.

Veenut
May 19th, 2005, 03:28 PM
There is something to be said about equal pay for equal work. The person who puts in an eight hour day usually deserves to get paid more than the person who puts in a four hour day.

And do women's matches sit more fans in the stands? Do they outdraw men's matches on television?

I'm not sure that is the case? At Wimbledon, the organizers claim it is NOT the case.

Is equal prize money really anything more than political correctness?

This is just an age old system set up by men who just consider themselves superior to women. Even in "modern" societies women still make 30% less for EQUAL work. Therefore the equal pay for equal work story doesn't apply.
In any case, it's hard to assess which is more popular from the stands because people have a wider selection of who to watch when they go to matches.

I definately know that certain women's matches attract more viewers on tv in the US than the men because this can be measured by the ratings. This is due to the causual fans who mainly watch because of name recognition. The bottom line is that the organizations are profiting equally from both men and women, therefore both sides should equally enjoy the same payment.

TonyP
May 19th, 2005, 03:32 PM
So, the real determining factor should be what? The TV ratings? If women draw more than men, then they should have a bigger pay day and vise versa?

And yes, men are stronger and more capable of playing for five sets. But how does that figure into an argument about equal pay for equal work? If men are stronger, then maybe women shouldn't be cops or firemen or take any job in which strength is a factor. I think the issue is, are women strong "enough" to get any specific job done. If they are, then they should be able to perform that job and be paid equally for equal work.

Maybe the question is, are five set matches really a good idea and there are arguments on both sides of that issue. But I think today you have to actually look at where the TV ratings are and not just parrot the line that women are more popular than men on the tennis court. Not sure that is the case, not with Anna and Martina gone and the Williams sisters no longer playing up to par.

Right now, the fate of women's tennis is solely in the hands of Maria Sharapova, and that's a heavy burdern for one girl to carry.

DA FOREHAND
May 19th, 2005, 03:36 PM
WTH cARES

They are all paid very well to do something we all love and wish we could get paid to play.

TonyP
May 19th, 2005, 03:37 PM
And I don't think you can go solely by TV ratings in America. America is only one country and it is very clear in this country tht TV ratings are tied to whether or not there is an American girl in the match.

It is probably the same in other countries as well.

So you should probably look at TV ratings worldwide. Certainly, if the match is the AO, then you have to look at ratings in Australia, and the same with the French and Wimbledon. You also have to get some rough estimate of how many people are in the stands for these matches.

DevilishAttitude
May 19th, 2005, 03:45 PM
Does it really matter :shrug: :confused:

Helen Lawson
May 19th, 2005, 03:53 PM
When I was making $350K a year under my contract with Walter Wanger in 1949, I didn't care how much my male counterparts were making, that was a fortune then! And boy did I need it with all the deadbeats I was supporting. That means you, Jess, wherever you are! Then I landed a 6-picture, $2 million deal with Columbia after I won my Oscar. Floyd and I blew $500K of that remodeling the farm house on our new ranch. Boy, there's nothing like spending money like a drunken sailor! It didn't really bother me that John Wayne and Jack Lemmon made more than me. But I'm a dame with highly personal goals.

vogus
May 19th, 2005, 04:22 PM
Prize money should be determined by who the public and sponsors are willing to pay for, not how long they play. .


And that is EXACTLY how it IS determined, except at the Grand Slams. The result? At regular tour events, the prize money pool for men is three times as large as it is for women.

Gerri
May 19th, 2005, 04:33 PM
5 sets vs 3 sets can't be the determining factor in allocating prize money. Any player could breeze through a few rounds and then meet someone who has spent twice as long on court and worked twice as hard getting to the same round. Anyway players have to put in the hours off court too.

The bottom line is there are a handful of players who really draw crowds and some are men and some women. Wimbledon generates huge amounts of money, there's no harm in equal pay except probably to a few egos.

Pat Cash is just sounding like a bitter old has-been.

tennisrox
May 19th, 2005, 04:33 PM
I'm sure people who think men should be paid more than women because they play more ALSO agree that it should be more expensive to see a 3 hours movie than a 2 hours movie...

Right?

:lol: :yeah:

hablo
May 19th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Means nothing. For Tier III and lower, the public have very little interest because womens tennis is popular for top players. That's why the price money is so low for those tournaments. And for Tier II and Tier I, price money could be higher if the WTA would want to.

At the Canadian Open in Montreal, women got better attendance than men most of the time - but they were still paid 3 times less.

Slams are totally different because it's the only tournament that all top female players play. So we can't really compare to other tournaments.

:yeah: I wish I could good rep you again!!! :bounce:

Ravsieg
May 20th, 2005, 08:35 PM
I find it extremely unfair you judge it by how interesting it is, instead of how hard the players do.
So far, nearly everyone thought that way.

Sanneriet
May 20th, 2005, 08:58 PM
The difference in prize money between men and women at Wimbledon is so small precisely because the AEC wants to make a point that they value women's tennis less than men's. And Pat Cash is an idiot that never formed an original thought and has also made a new 'mini' career out of bashing women's tennis.

Pengwin
May 20th, 2005, 09:11 PM
Women probably work harder than men (based on the muscle's abililty to work and general fitness) which is why they get injured more.

Serena and Maria work their asses off more than Cash ever did.

creep
May 20th, 2005, 09:17 PM
Men should get paid more than women for playing tennis. Men's tennis is of a superior standard to ladies tennis.

CJ07
May 20th, 2005, 09:28 PM
i don't see anything wrong with what he said. thats the way it works in every other job :shrug:

Kart
May 20th, 2005, 09:31 PM
I'm not surprised at this.

Cash has been saying the same thing for years ... yet the press latch onto it every time :yawn:.

Somebody call me when he says something different :zzz:.

Kart
May 20th, 2005, 09:34 PM
Mind you his comments do remind me how embarrassed I am to live within a few miles of the Wimbledon tennis tournament and their disappointing prize money policy :mad:.

Helen Lawson
May 20th, 2005, 09:35 PM
Isn't Pat Cash one of those who is PAID to attend B&Bs and have cocktails with tennis fans as the "former Wimbledon champion" when Wimbledon is going on? I'll totally pimp out the fact that I've won an Oscar to get like free stuff, discounts, a movie role, and the like, but I do NOT accept money to attend a cocktail party.