True. Male actors might earn more, but its very basic as to why. Maybe a C list actress in a crappy independent needs to be paid as much as Meryl Streep. Yeah right=) Every argument for equal pay without equal results proves the stupidity of some people. Or maybe its just lack of logic or common sense. The same people who support the U.S. giving away billions to poor countries in Africa, just to make the world fair. &^$*#((@ clueless.
Ticket sales should determine prize money. We live in an PC world though so it's hard to hold that line. College tennis is really unfair because of Title 9. I played and I watched the girls team get twice as much scholarship money. Terrible players who had lousy rankings in the juniors got near full rides, meanwhile our team was way more successful and was left with scraps. SJWs have selective outrage.
What did he say that was completely true? Could it be this: In my next life, when I come back, I want to be someone in the WTA because they ride on the coattails of the men. They dont make any decisions, and they are lucky. They are very, very lucky, Moore said. If I was a lady player, Id go down every night on my knees and thank God that Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were born, because they have carried this sport. Hello there, BJK, Steffi Graff and Martinia Navarilova called and they have won a great deal of Grand Slam tournaments. Actually, in some tournaments, they do. How are men far better? How do you define this? Care to explain why Serena playing Sharapova at the Aussie Open this past Jan sold more tickets than other men's QF matches? Where are your "facts"? All you have presented is a band wagon ride on the former Indian Wells tournament director. Interesting you quantify by the top 20-30 men on the ATP rankings. It would totally suck then for the men in the 31-100 rankings on the ATP tour to be considered less than a female, eh? Some men get paid more than women in the commentary booth too. What is your point here? There are 4 Grand Slam tournaments where men play best 3 out of 5 tournaments, including Davis Cup. The rest of the calendar year, tournaments are the best 2 out of 3. Please elaborate on how women do not work as hard as men and are not as technically skilled. "Manufactured" equality? What? You mean the Winner of a tournament should be paid the same as someone who lost in the 1st round? Do you play tennis? Have you played at the college level? Have you played on the pro-tour?
Agree. 3 out of 5 sets for men occurs at the 4 Grand Slams (Majors) for Singles and in Davis Cup for Singles and Doubles. Men's Doubles at the 4 Majors are best 2 out of 3, and Mixed Doubles the best 2 out of 3, with the 3rd set being a 10 point tiebraker. The rest of the calendar year, the Men follow the same format as the Women. Men play best 3 out of 5 at the Majors, in all rounds. Far more what? - - - Updated - - - They already are and they already have filled stadiums.
How is Djokovic correct? You realize both Serena and Sharapova have higher net worths than him? You realize Serena has won more Grand Slam titles than him? You realize that at the Indian Wells tournament, both men and women play the best 2 out of 3 sets?
I played D1, I didn't play futures. I'll admit it's a complex issue. While I still believe revenue should influence prize money, it would likely be unrealistic to do that with any precision at combined events. It doesn’t mean that Serena accomplishes something less than Novak on a weekend when they both win the same slam, just like it doesn’t mean that Federer is an inferior athlete to Kobe or MJ just because he has been paid less to win than NBA stars are. It’s just about where the revenue goes. What do you think? Obviously the ratings can’t determine the prize money on a match by match basis based on ratings (for example, the prize for winning the finals can't go down if Serena gets upset in the SF round). Do you think women should play best of 5 at slams?
Every day I post on a tennis website as the WTA is my favorite pro league. This matter has come up several times. The bottom line here is that the WTA is NOT responsible for the problems you listed. It is the ATP which is responsible because it is the one that mandates play play 3 of 5. If the players refused to do so then there would be no problem. Please do not blame the women for this. The blame goes squarely upon the men.
Men bring more money to the sport so they are payed more. Same as in Golf, Basketball etc etc etc.. Get viewership up on a consistent basis and women purses/salaries would go up more. Simple stuff here.
You did not play on the Pro tour. Your coaching, travel, hotels, food, and basic equipment costs etc. were covered by your university. [/QUOTE] I'll admit it's a complex issue.[/QUOTE] It is a complex issue for keeping ATP 500 and lower tournaments financially solvent. This is a problem for both the ATP and the tournaments held on the WTA side. Revenue is derived from sponsors, TV rights, and ticket sales. There is a plethora of ATP tournaments where women do not compete. Same thing for the WTA. [/QUOTE]It doesnt mean that Serena accomplishes something less than Novak on a weekend when they both win the same slam, just like it doesnt mean that Federer is an inferior athlete to Kobe or MJ just because he has been paid less to win than NBA stars are. Its just about where the revenue goes.[/QUOTE] Right, it doesn't mean Christian Ronaldo is the supreme athlete because he is at the top of the list for net worth. I think the ATP and the WTA should focus more on keeping the Challenger and Future levels more fiscally sound. This whole men vs. female equal pay at the Majorswas put to bed years ago. It has reared its ugly head from the Indian Wells tournament Director recently with Djokovic chiming in on this issue, again. If he feels to strongly about the pay disparity, he is more than welcome to donate his prize money from Aussie and Indian Wells this year to some Challenger tournaments. BJK has made a case here. I think you should read her position on this.
A few women players do bring in a lot of money for pro tennis in terms of sales of merchandise such as shoes, racquets, sportswear, and other items. The sales of these often exceed that produced by male players. Still, the bottom line is, end the 3 of 5 rule and the discussion is ended.
Do you know what the purses/salaries are for the 4 Majors? Do you know what the purses/salaries are for Indian Wells?
Do you know there is tennis played outside of the Majors? Do you know what the word consistent means?
Those are silly questions. You stated that: "A few women players do bring in a lot of money for pro tennis in terms of sales of merchandise such as shoes, racquets, sportswear, and other items. The sales of these often exceed that produced by male players. Still, the bottom line is, end the 3 of 5 rule and the discussion is ended". How do you know that? Do you know the specifics of the Nike contracts with Nadal and Serena? The 3 out of 5 is played at 4 tournaments, the Majors, plus Davis Cup, in a calendar year. Do you know what an ATP 250 tournament is?
I stated no such thing.... Hot damn man in your rush to be *right* ( ie argue) you dont even know who you are quoting.
` ` Gender equality? Women are already tops in tennis U.S. Open womens final scores higher TV ratings than men's final Should prize money be equal in Grand Slam Tennis? Once again,those who know the very LEAST about a topic, have the MOST to say, and most of that is wrong.
Your last link is nothing but opinion and maybes and admits in itself that it needs a closer look.. Your 2nd link in about ONE match. ONE. And then compares those ratings to previous women finals. Shall i bother to look at your first? Can you admit you just googled something without actually looking at the link?
While this is a bit off topic, Title IX goes way back to 1972 and, as someone who lobbied for its passage, I know fully well that it is gender neutral. Therefore, everyone is supposed to benefit from the legislation. The law itself is not responsible for any differences in scholarship awards. I well remember around the time of its passage when schools like Old Dominion, Immaculata, and Queens College of NY had powerful womens basketball teams. When the law was passed schools like these were now compelled to allocate equal amounts of money to mens basketball. Soon the womens programs sank and the teams are no longer household names. Title IX calls for equal access to all programs for everyone. Apply the law uniformly and everyone will benefit.
` As I stated, those who know the lest about a topic, have the most to say and using the above poster, don't know what they are talking about. When it comes to always being wrong, he's the champ. ` ` ` `
Cant dispute my point so here comes wall of questions time.. Women ratings are up... They just signed a new tv deal.. A record deal.. Meaning tournament purses will go up. Which proves my point previously posted.. Get interest up/ratings and you make more.. Simple. No sexism or conspiracy.
I used your own first link to prove my point that getting the interest/ratings up would lead to higher salaries.... Game, set, match
What point- "Men bring more money to the sport so they are payed more", or is it "women's ratings are up". Tournament winnings vary from tournament to tournament, both on the ATP and WTA tour. Just to clarify, both men and women have been paid equally at the 4 Majors for awhile now.
