[Other Sport] 'Equal' pay at Wimbledon

[amexee]

Just curious. What do the wheelchair players receive in comparison?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

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.

At Wimbledon specifically, you are not going to watch women's or men's tennis exclusively. You buy tickets on a ballot. You don't know who is playing until they mail you to say you have got tickets. Wimbledon is sold out before Christmas generally. You are taking one scenario, I shall introduce you to another one. Women's final, 6-1, 6-2 in 1h 5m. Men's final, 7-6, 4-6, 4-6, 7-6, 7-6 in 4h 35m. Both winners recieve the same. Equality?

 

[Yes Chef]

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.

Or they might be spending a beautiful Saturday evening not on NSC.

You've basically admitted to trolling with your post there

 

[Beach Seagull]

Or they might be spending a beautiful Saturday evening not on NSC.

You've basically admitted to trolling with your post there

No trolling at all. Please can you tell me where my 'admission' is?

 

[drew]

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.

Not sure those that spectate would necessarily agree. They had no choice in how the prize money is distributed. I would suggest most prefer to watch a mens match rather than womens. Todays final was over in only 16 games. Tomorrow could be over in as little as 24 but most will predict it will got to a lot more.

It would be interesting to see if the women could handle five set matches but I fear the only way it will ever be equal would be if mne dropped to 3 set matches!!

 

[drew]

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

Not necessarily. They would just use some of the outside courts for longer!

 

[Beach Seagull]

Not sure those that spectate would necessarily agree. They had no choice in how the prize money is distributed. I would suggest most prefer to watch a mens match rather than womens. Todays final was over in only 16 games. Tomorrow could be over in as little as 24 but most will predict it will got to a lot more.

It would be interesting to see if the women could handle five set matches but I fear the only way it will ever be equal would be if mne dropped to 3 set matches!!

I'm totally correct. It's sexism. Per game the women get more money. You can dress it up all you like but that's the fact. If say the men's winner received 900k and the womens 800k there would be uproar.........#equalpayforwomen / threats to boycott Wimbledon etc but as its the other way round nothing is said.

 

[dazzer6666]

I'm totally correct. It's sexism. Per game the women get more money. You can dress it up all you like but that's the fact. If say the men's winner received 900k and the womens 800k there would be uproar.........#equalpayforwomen / threats to boycott Wimbledon etc but as its the other way round nothing is said.

Likely, but not certain at all.....depends on the results. 6-7, 7-6, 8-6 W vs 6-1, 6-1, 6-0 M ?

LTA got great PR and ‘inclusivity’ kudos by equalising the prize money and shut down a lot of noise. Given the amount of cash they make from the tournament making up the difference was a relative drop in the ocean. Should the length of the match be the primary consideration in terms of deciding the relative prize money anyway ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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.

You guess wrong. The absence is more to do with you being a tedious dullard than anything else. Keep trying though, maybe someone will bite.

 

[Deadly Danson]

I'm totally correct. It's sexism. Per game the women get more money. You can dress it up all you like but that's the fact. If say the men's winner received 900k and the womens 800k there would be uproar.........#equalpayforwomen / threats to boycott Wimbledon etc but as its the other way round nothing is said.

Perhaps easier to let Andy Murray explain the bigger picture - some of his thoughts on the subject:

“I think there should be equal pay, 100%, at all combined events. Crowds are coming to watch the women as well. The thing doesn’t stack up. It changes depending on the matches.

Men’s tennis has been lucky over the last nine or 10 years with the players they’ve had. That’s great, but the whole of tennis should capitalise on it, not just the men’s game.

But at a tournament like this, if Serena is on centre court and you have a men’s match with Stakhovsky playing, then people are coming to watch Serena.

People often underestimate the amount of work that it takes to become a top tennis player. And that work ethic is the same whether you are a man or a woman.

There are hours spent in the gym, on court, in physio, travelling, analysing matches and opponents, talking with your team, managing your body, and of course, making plenty of sacrifices.

Anyone who has spent any time with any of the top women will know that they make those same sacrifices and are as determined and committed to winning as any of the top men on the tour.
And it's great that all the Slams pay their male and female champions the same. No other sport is doing as much as tennis, and it's great to be part of a sport that is leading the way. Hopefully tennis can put pressure on other sports to do the same."

 

[Yes Chef]

No trolling at all. Please can you tell me where my 'admission' is?

The lazy tropes you use in the post I quoted would suggest otherwise.
Anyway, I've finished work, time for a craft beer and a beard trim

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Perhaps easier to let Andy Murray explain the bigger picture - some of his thoughts on the subject:

“I think there should be equal pay, 100%, at all combined events. Crowds are coming to watch the women as well. The thing doesn’t stack up. It changes depending on the matches.

Men’s tennis has been lucky over the last nine or 10 years with the players they’ve had. That’s great, but the whole of tennis should capitalise on it, not just the men’s game.

But at a tournament like this, if Serena is on centre court and you have a men’s match with Stakhovsky playing, then people are coming to watch Serena.

People often underestimate the amount of work that it takes to become a top tennis player. And that work ethic is the same whether you are a man or a woman.

There are hours spent in the gym, on court, in physio, travelling, analysing matches and opponents, talking with your team, managing your body, and of course, making plenty of sacrifices.

Anyone who has spent any time with any of the top women will know that they make those same sacrifices and are as determined and committed to winning as any of the top men on the tour.
And it's great that all the Slams pay their male and female champions the same. No other sport is doing as much as tennis, and it's great to be part of a sport that is leading the way. Hopefully tennis can put pressure on other sports to do the same."

Andy Murray is a multi millionaire, why would he care? He makes more money off court.

Edit: People DO NOT go to see Serena unless they are the privileged few that can pick and choose tickets. Us nobody's just get tickets for a court on a date stated by the club, it's done by ballot. We have no idea who we are going to watch, we have no choice.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Andy Murray is a multi millionaire, why would he care? He makes more money off court.

So is Serena Williams. Whats your point?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

So is Serena Williams. Whats your point?

See above, I edited.

As for run of the mill tournaments where men and women just play the three sets, I totally agree in equality.

 

[drew]

I'm totally correct. It's sexism. Per game the women get more money. You can dress it up all you like but that's the fact. If say the men's winner received 900k and the womens 800k there would be uproar.........#equalpayforwomen / threats to boycott Wimbledon etc but as its the other way round nothing is said.

I'm not dressing it up as anything, I agree that the women in this case don't warrant equal prize money!

 

[Diablo]

So is Serena Williams. Whats your point?

15-0

 

[drew]

Andy Murray is a multi millionaire, why would he care? He makes more money off court.

Edit: People DO NOT go to see Serena unless they are the privileged few that can pick and choose tickets. Us nobody's just get tickets for a court on a date stated by the club, it's done by ballot. We have no idea who we are going to watch, we have no choice.

Exactly. Also, wasn't the Diamond League paying equal pay long before Tennis?

 

[Surrey Phil]

So the ladies final today took less than an hour and the men’s final today nearly five hours. Whilst I know it will never happen, the only way to really settle the dispute, is to hold separate Wimbledon’s for men and women and pay them according to ticket sales, TV audiences and TV revenue. I have my suspicion which sex would earn the most!

 

[Guinness Boy]

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.

It's ok, you're doing a great job of looking like a dick all by yourself. I'm back off for a game of FIFA.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Eh? Much prefer the women's tennis thanks. Sexy bums and grunts and quality play. Particularly like the mixed doubles to see how the female in each pair fares when targeted by the male in the other pair. These battles can be fascinating.
Bought two tickets for Centre Court via Ticketmaster for the women's semis for £160 each and had a brilliant time. Also, watched the Brits battle vainly but gallantly in the mixed doubles quarters. Love going to Wimbledon, recommend it to anyone. Next year will just go for Court 3 or ground tickets.