I think it is a bit of everything. It's in our culture, looks often out weigh talent in music, films, and it's working its way into sport. With more and more female sports stars getting involved in FHM-type photo spreads, becoming more like celebrities followed when they go out, featured in fashion sections of red carpet events. This culture of pretty = worthwhile feeds into all areas of life, the audience, the competitors, the authorities, the sponsors, the TV companies that pay the authorities for broadcast rights, and I think to a large degree it is subconscious, so ingrained in us that we don't even realise it is affecting our decisions as to who we watch or when or whatever.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Prize Money At Wimbledon (A Poll)
- Thread starter stripeyshark
- Start date
I think it is a bit of everything. It's in our culture, looks often out weigh talent in music, films, and it's working its way into sport. With more and more female sports stars getting involved in FHM-type photo spreads, becoming more like celebrities followed when they go out, featured in fashion sections of red carpet events. This culture of pretty = worthwhile feeds into all areas of life, the audience, the competitors, the authorities, the sponsors, the TV companies that pay the authorities for broadcast rights, and I think to a large degree it is subconscious, so ingrained in us that we don't even realise it is affecting our decisions as to who we watch or when or whatever.
I don't disagree with any of that, but Marion Bartolli pocketed the same cash that Maria Kirinlenko would have done. There is no looks-based criteria for competition entry.
Obviously the better looking high-ranked players stand to make more from endorsements and sponsorships, but thats fair enough.
Equally you could point out women's finals can go three sets, and men's finals can be over in three sets. So they should get the same prize money because one can site exams of this occurring.
But, I'm not saying prize money is based on the attractiveness of the winner, but that the existence of women at the games brings in an audience, whether directly at the gate, or on TV (which then feeds the coffers throu broadcast rits, etc) because they can be objectified and sexualised as a group in a way that the men are not, in simple maths style
Money from people interested the men for sporting reasons (big percentage (of this side of the equation)) + money from people lusting after sweaty sportsmen (tiny percentage) = money from people interested in women for sporting reasons (decent percentage) + money from people interested in lusting after sweaty sportswomen (significant percentage)
And that since they bring in as much money, even if not all of it is based on their on court talent, they should be rewarded equally
Tricky Dicky
New member
These guys certainly won't earn a living without dedicating their whole life to it, giving up virtually everything else outside the game as they grow up. As for being a "strange" argument - it's certainly the one I've heard quoted the most in favour of equal pay, it's not my argument - I believe it was the main argument the All England club gave when instituting equal pay.
"The old Lipton International" is the Miami Masters, and still played over 3 sets for women. It's also played over 3 sets for men, like most (all?) of the ATP tour events outside of the Slams.
It's nice to know you're concerned about the physiology of women that means they won't be able to manage to play - poor little darlings....
Tickets for show courts are for the court - not individual matches so you get what you're given. The reasons for the 2 men's matches and 1 women's match on Centre and 1 is due to time. Play starts at 1pm on these courts, and 11.30am on the others. The other show courts at Wimbledon will have 2 men's and 2 women's matches. You'll probably get some doubles on Centre and 1 later in the day, if time allows. There's absolutely no way that there'd be tickets left unsold if you put 3 women's matches onto Centre.
That's as maybe, but I still don't agree with it. Why not go the whole hog and give everybody the same regardless of whether they win or lose? After all the losers have trained just as hard as the winners.
Dr NBC
Former Insider
I stand corrected on the Lipton. The tournament I meant to reference was the Virginia Slims Championships which was a best of five format between 1984 and 1998.
And I'm not the only one who has made a reference to physical "concerns."
Introducing best-of-fives into women's majors would have numerous benefits. For a start, it should boost athleticism. That has been perhaps the most exciting development in the men's game over the past decade. As modern tennis has retreated to the baseline and rallies have lengthened, the need to prepare for a punishing, five-set encounter has made fitness a priority. The supreme conditioning of Mr Nadal and Serbia's Novak Djokovic, who have split all of the last seven slams between them, has allowed them to perform acrobatics that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. This has replaced the court craft of the 1970s as the visual treat for spectators.
By contrast, without best-of-fives, the fading of serve-and-volley tennis has arguably led to a setback for athleticism in the women's game, which probably peaked with Germany's Steffi Graf in the 1980s and 1990s. Players approach the net less frequently than ever before, and yet they have never had to build much stamina. Even some of the higher-ranked players—such as France's Marion Bartoli, ranked ninth in the world, or Russia's Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, now 16th—sometimes look notably out of shape. Meanwhile, the fitter women have little opportunity in a best-of-three to make their physical superiority count.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/01/gender-and-tennis
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Its not pay, its prize money. There is a big difference, salaries paid from income generated by the clubs; prizes paid by the tournament organisers from sponsorship revenue. Off the top of my head only tennis and athletics in the professional world has tournaments with both men and women playing and given equal billing, and in both cases prize money is the same.*
* I guess things like badminton do as well but no idea what the prize structure is
It's not equal billing though is it? There is no way in the world the Men's final would ever be BEFORE the Women's. It's very clearly seen as the main event. Look at the coverage. Even if there hadn't been a British player in the final, the Men's would've received 12-14 times more coverage than the Women's. No question.
Also, just being frank about it, the standard is much, much higher in the Men's. That in itself for me suggests the prize money should be higher, as a higher level of quality is required to win it.
If pay and prize money were more equal then the quality of Women's sport is likely to increase. Athletics and Triathlon has equal billing. There are probably others too, but not nearly enough to support Women's sport properly.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Yep, I remembered athletics, that gets equal prize money. As for showjumping, not sure if I've ever wondered what sex the horse was to be honest.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Why persist in comparing the two games. Men are taller, stronger and built differently so yes, the style of play will differ from one to the other and men can maintain their standard of tennis over five sets better than women can over five. But all that is just biology. Men have their competition and women have their competition and you or I or anyone is free to choose which they prefer to watch, but that's just subjective. Fundamentally men and women are equal and if there are men's and women's competitions at the same tournament they should have equal prize money. Which they do.
For professional athletes on the Grand Prix circuit, prize money is an irrelevance. Its all about the appearance money, and the big players like Bolt recieve FAR more than the women.
Postman Pat
Well-known member
But it isn't really equal is it. Serena Williams was able to win both the women's singles and doubles competition last year earning her winnings of £1.76m, more than the men's winner Federer who picked up £1.6m. Due to playing less tennis the women are still able to play in the doubles, whereas most men are not able to.
I don't see why it matters so much that they're at the same tournament at the same time. Women have a Euros and a World Cup, it wouldn't feasible to have both playing concurrently in the same country so why should pay be different in that instance, according to your logic?
You said they had equal billing - they clearly do NOT.
Men choose not to - they aren't excluded from playing.
But they would say they don't have a choice as 5 sets is simply too much. The women can do it as it is 3 sets. I'm not being funny but look at the physique of the female Wimbledon winner - Bartoli. Then look at the physique you need to be in the Top 10 Men. It's a different sport.
finally!