[Other Sport] 'Equal' pay at Wimbledon

[JBizzle]

Based on 2018 TV figures (which is where much of the money is made):

"BBC’s coverage of the Singles Finals peaked at 4.6 million for the Ladies' Singles Final and 4.5 million for the Gentlemen's Singles Final"

From the official Wimbledon site.

 

[Nigella's Cream Pie]

Based on 2018 TV figures (which is where much of the money is made):

"BBC’s coverage of the Singles Finals peaked at 4.6 million for the Ladies' Singles Final and 4.5 million for the Gentlemen's Singles Final"

From the official Wimbledon site.

How about actual time spent watching?!

 

[Wilko]

Genuinely wonder what the OP is expecting people to say to this. Yes, per minute played the women get paid more. Obviously you aren’t suggesting that everyone is paid according to the time spent on an endeavour, because that wouldn’t be right either.

On average, men are born with a significant physical advantage to women. Maybe you think this gives them the right to be paid more. But in practically every job in every industry women are paid significantly less than men, solely because of their gender. This is entirely inappropriate and makes no sense whatsoever - it’s counter-productive to the general advancement of the human race. Anything that can be done to address this balance should be done. If there are some aberrations that mean women get paid technically more than men, then so be it. A tiny price to pay.

Absolutely not true. Women EARN less, they are not paid less. That has been illegal since the 1970s. One of the greatest Feminist myths of our time. It has been analysed to death, check out 'The factual feminist' for the expert analysis of this.

Personally, I do not care that women are paid the same as men for the tennis, it seems that the male players also seem to support it. It is however a slight example of 'selective' feminism. Wanting equality whilst also not wanting equality.

What does not help though is those on this thread talking about 'birds' and 'rug munchers', there is an interesting debate to be had on this topic without resulting to backwards terminology. I am pretty sure that those top female athletes could play 5 set matches, in fact it could be considered pretty patronising to suggest they couldn't.

 

[nwgull]

Based on 2018 TV figures (which is where much of the money is made):

"BBC’s coverage of the Singles Finals peaked at 4.6 million for the Ladies' Singles Final and 4.5 million for the Gentlemen's Singles Final"

From the official Wimbledon site.

Possibly because about 10m English sports fans were watching the greatest cricket world cup final of all time on the other side?

 

[BadFish]

My comment was in reference to John McEnroe... most tennis fans should spot that.

Tennis fans would also agree that the money raised by Wimbledon which is payable to the players is the result of the whole event. That’s men, women and mixed doubles. Does the length of the game matter? Using that logic, a round 1 game that lasts 4 hours should be ‘worth more’ than a final that lasts 1.5 hours. That’s not how it works. It’s prize money depending on how far a player can go. There should be no discrepancy based on gender. Let’s hope the rest of our society catches up.

The prize money should be divied up by who played the most tennis, therefore who was the most entertaining. Maybe we could add some bonuses for a little on court antics or an interesting post match interview. It's the only fair way.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Well there really is nothing to see here. Now IF the women STAFF were paid less than men then that would be scandalous.

 

[Wilko]

Well there really is nothing to see here. Now IF the women STAFF were paid less than men then that would be scandalous.

Which they wouldn't as that has been illegal since 1970. Unfortunately there are still people that confuse 'men earn more than women' with 'men get paid more than women'.

 

[luppers]

Possibly because about 10m English sports fans were watching the greatest cricket world cup final of all time on the other side?

Not when these figures were released. Isays the 2018 final

 

[JBizzle]

Possibly because about 10m English sports fans were watching the greatest cricket world cup final of all time on the other side?

2018

 

[dazzer6666]

How about actual time spent watching?!

So what ? That’s as relevant as talking about a boxing match.....no idea when it starts how long it’s going to last.

 

[FatSuperman]

Absolutely not true. Women EARN less, they are not paid less. That has been illegal since the 1970s. One of the greatest Feminist myths of our time. It has been analysed to death, check out 'The factual feminist' for the expert analysis of this.

A huge number of jobs don't have a standard hourly rate, so I think arguing over the semantics is a bit pointless. The fact is that the vast majority of high paid execs are men. And woman are consistently paid less than men for the same job title. You can argue forever about why those men might be 'worth' more, but ultimately something is not right with this scenario. Perhaps it's something early on in the system that impacts this, but frankly, I think it's quite possible that there is inherent gender bias at play.

I see this as a similar argument to why there are more* black people in prison than white people - it's not because the colour of your skin makes you more predisposed to criminal endeavour, but rather the higher likelihood of a deprived upbringing. In this way, a person's gender does not impact their capability to do practically any job.

*As a %, vs %ethnicity of population

 

[FatSuperman]

So what ? That’s as relevant as talking about a boxing match.....no idea when it starts how long it’s going to last.

I think we could predict what would happen if people started getting paid based on how long something took

Just like when solicitors and the like were paid based on word/letter count. You end up with lots of henceforth's and therewith's to pad things out!

 

[The Optimist]

I am pretty sure that those top female athletes could play 5 set matches, in fact it could be considered pretty patronising to suggest they couldn't.

I wonder why it’s only 3 sets in the women’s game. Does this happen in any other sport?

 

[Driver8]

I wonder why it’s only 3 sets in the women’s game. Does this happen in any other sport?

Aren’t women’s golf holes shorter? I think their cricket balls are smaller too.

 

[The Wizard]

As a big tennis fan myself I do understand why you would think it seems unfair, men are essentially having to work more hours for the same pay but you must realise a lot more goes into tennis than just the matches you see, sure Halep received the same money for a 1 hour demolition of Serena as Novak got for his nye on 5 hour epic against Federer but really, if you factor in the work the athletes put in not just the time taken to win matches, I’m sure the difference is negligible.

The debate about women playing 5 sets really is a non starter as well, you’d have 2 generations of players who have bodies conditioned to playing 3 sets having their bodies physically destroyed, even the men only play 5 sets at several events for that exact reason.

 

[Brovion]

Women's Final - 56 minutes
6-2, 6-2

Men's Final - 4 hours 57 minutes
7-6 (7-5), 1-6, 7-6 (7-4), 4-6, 13-12 (7-3)

Exactly. The women's game is over much quicker meaning that everybody can go and do something more interesting. Give 'em a bonus I say. In fact the two men should have their pay halved and given to the women for boring the arses off everybody. Five hours watching a ball being patted over a net! Formula One I take it all back.

 

[Wilko]

A huge number of jobs don't have a standard hourly rate, so I think arguing over the semantics is a bit pointless. The fact is that the vast majority of high paid execs are men. And woman are consistently paid less than men for the same job title. You can argue forever about why those men might be 'worth' more, but ultimately something is not right with this scenario. Perhaps it's something early on in the system that impacts this, but frankly, I think it's quite possible that there is inherent gender bias at play.

I see this as a similar argument to why there are more* black people in prison than white people - it's not because the colour of your skin makes you more predisposed to criminal endeavour, but rather the higher likelihood of a deprived upbringing. In this way, a person's gender does not impact their capability to do practically any job.

*As a %, vs %ethnicity of population

I would say arguing over the semantics is VERY important rather than pointless because saying men earn more than women is correct. Saying men get paid more than women is where misinterpretation and arguments over unfairness come from. I agree with everything else you say that there is something very wrong with the system where the hierarchy of power is skewed heavily towards men in terms of positions of power. What is not helpful however is for people to continually push the line that 'men are paid more than women', they are not (I mean in the UK, unequal pay certainly does occur in some countries) and if they are then report the company ASAP. If we are going to progress in the pay discussion as a society then the first thing needed is to eradicate the myth.

 

[Nigella's Cream Pie]

So what ? That’s as relevant as talking about a boxing match.....no idea when it starts how long it’s going to last.

What's for certain is that men's matches take longer than women's, the 5 hour v. 1 hour finals this year was nothing really out of the ordinary.

 

[dazzer6666]

What's for certain is that men's matches take longer than women's, the 5 hour v. 1 hour finals this year was nothing really out of the ordinary.

Nope. Both could easily be three setters. Likely perhaps but not certain.

 

[Surrey Phil]

Women fill all the seats so deserve the same money.

Well Serena certainly does, that’s for sure!!