[Other Sport] 'Equal' pay at Wimbledon

[Beach Seagull]

Not a great follower of tennis, but I see the men's and women's get the same prize money to be 'equal'. But the men play more games to win the tournament so that means the women are paid more? How can that be 'equal'. Surely the prize money distribution should be based on ££ per game? Also the men's game is a bigger draw I guarantee a tout will get more for a men's final ticket than he will for a women's final ticket.

 

[Luke93]

You cannot be serious?

 

[jonny.rainbow]

If women played an equal amount (i.e. five set matches) then Grand Slams would have to be a week longer.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Whatever the merits of the sexes and tennis, I really, really enjoyed seeing Williams get duffed up today.

 

[Eeyore]

Not a great follower of tennis, but I see the men's and women's get the same prize money to be 'equal'. But the men play more games to win the tournament so that means the women are paid more? How can that be 'equal'. Surely the prize money distribution should be based on ££ per game? Also the men's game is a bigger draw I guarantee a tout will get more for a men's final ticket than he will for a women's final ticket.

Yes, but tennis receives no money from touts.

The tournament is based on a packaged appeal. Folk watch women's tennis as well as men's. It's not like football. I don't think equal prize money is an issue.

 

[Beach Seagull]

You cannot be serious?

care to elaborate?

 

[Beach Seagull]

Yes, but tennis receives no money from touts.

The tournament is based on a packaged appeal. Folk watch women's tennis as well as men's. It's not like football. I don't think equal prize money is an issue.

Thats my point it isn't equal. Per game the birds get more.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

it's not equal at all, massively in favour of women. If I worked 50 hours a week to recieve the same as a woman working 30 hours a week, in the same job, I'd be pretty pissed off.

 

[Beach Seagull]

If women played an equal amount (i.e. five set matches) then Grand Slams would have to be a week longer.

Well so be it. The women earn more per game that ain't right. If was other way round would be all sorts of rug munchers demanding 'equality' and threatening 'boycotts' of wimbledon.

 

[Icy Gull]

Whatever the merits of the sexes and tennis, I really, really enjoyed seeing Williams get duffed up today.

Me too but I have to say that she was very gracious in defeat. Halep is a bit of a card, I enjoyed her post match interview more than any I can remember.

 

[Eeyore]

Thats my point it isn't equal. Per game the birds get more.

Yes. But it's not just about the amount of games played in a tournament. The training and preparation is 95% of the work they do. That's the consideration.

 

[dazzer6666]

care to elaborate?

Whoosh [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[dangull]

I think the women are more interested in the men's final anyway. In fact, if they are in the kitchen cooking meals, there more than happy anyway.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Yes. But it's not just about the amount of games played in a tournament. The training and preparation is 95% of the work they do. That's the consideration.

Is it? 95%? Did you pluck that little stat out of thin air? With tournaments taking place week in and week out for most of the year, training is generally done at the office, or the court in this case.

 

[Beach Seagull]

Whats really amusing is the total absence here of the NSC 'trendy liberal elite' they are usually all other threads like this condemning people like me as 'sexist dinosaurs' whilst showcasing their 'oh so right on credentials' but I guess they've done the maths and thought 'yeah he is right I'll duck out of this one'. If I was to start a 'women's football is rubbish' thread they would drop their craft beer stop stroking their beards and bash me with the guardian.

 

[Beach Seagull]

Yes. But it's not just about the amount of games played in a tournament. The training and preparation is 95% of the work they do. That's the consideration.

995
Could we please give me a breakdown of the '95%' stat please?

 

[Luke93]

care to elaborate?

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.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

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.

So you would happily work 50 hours to earn what a woman earns in 30 then.

 

[Beach Seagull]

So you would happily work 50 hours to earn what a woman earns in 30 then.

This!!! Awaits a response. Where is 'the large one' he usually likes to insult posters on threads like this for daring to disagree from his 'right' opinion.

 

[Luke93]

So you would happily work 50 hours to earn what a woman earns in 30 then.

If it was prize money for a sport, for the same round number, at the same venue, being broadcast through the same media outlets, then yes. Absolutely.

I’ll go back to my previous point. Should we start paying tennis players who feature in 4 hour round 1 thrillers more than a 1.5 hour finalist? I prefer this perfectly logical format which is already in place.