Djokovic vs ATP

[GameSetAndMath]

One thing I would hope is that it would be one union, not one for men and one for women.

Oh, no; conflict of interest again.

Equality of men and women should simply be equal opportunity and not necessarily equal money.

 

[Moxie]

Oh, no; conflict of interest again.

Equality of men and women should simply be equal opportunity and not necessarily equal money.

I knew I was going to get shit for that one, but I left it anyway. When the men formed the ATP, (notice there's no "M" in there,) BJK asked them to let the women join their association. The men said no, so the women formed the WTA. And they made it viable and money-making on its own. (See "Battle of the Sexes" movie for an easy tutorial.) I would hope that the men wouldn't be on the wrong side of history twice, but that will be their call. Sure, not equal money (unless it's not a coed event) but equal opportunity, as you say. However, even the men would benefit from the star-power of some women, when negotiating with tournaments, etc. A strong and united front. No one should have a problem if benefits paid out are commiserate with dues paid in.

But speaking of equal opportunity: you know that women are offered 1/2 of the slots that men are in qualifiers of Majors, right? (Or as of last year.) That is a 50% lower opportunity in terms of making money for the women. For what I can see as no reason, at all. That'd be one option for equal opportunity that could be easily corrected.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But speaking of equal opportunity: you know that women are offered 1/2 of the slots that men are in qualifiers of Majors, right? (Or as of last year.) That is a 50% lower opportunity in terms of making money for the women. For what I can see as no reason, at all. That'd be one option for equal opportunity that could be easily corrected.

Yes, the number of qualifiers for women are less. But, it is not that someone has made it an arbitrary rule to deprive them of opportunities
If they really have to have 16 qualifiers with a three round draw, they should let in 128 players who are ranked outside of top 104. Apparently, it was deemed that the quality of matches would be so low in that case and that is the reason.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, the number of qualifiers for women are less. But, it is not that someone has made it an arbitrary rule to deprive them of opportunities
If they really have to have 16 qualifiers with a three round draw, they should let in 128 players who are ranked outside of top 104. Apparently, it was deemed that the quality of matches would be so low in that case and that is the reason.

And you don't think that's arbitrary? It's certainly subjective.

 

[Federberg]

One thing I would hope is that it would be one union, not one for men and one for women.

It's not clear to me that their interests are always aligned. I do think that women should be looking to do the same thing as well. And in that scenario where there is joint interest they can cooperate

 

[Federberg]

And you don't think that's arbitrary? It's certainly subjective.

Who made it so? Sounds like the women should be looking to break away from the WTA and negotiate their own agreements as well

 

[mrzz]

I would hope that the men wouldn't be on the wrong side of history twice, but that will be their call.

This is a matter of perspective. My opinion is exactly the opposite. Once you "force" equality, putting together two different groups -- because they play different tournaments -- you are seeding discord, and you will surely harvest it later.

There are common interests? Sure. As there are common interests among players and tournaments (which would be to promote tennis in general). But, as among players and tournaments, there are conflicts also. Male and female players fight for roughly the same market. There are people who follow just one of the tours (my case, for example), but I guess most will follow both. Given that the word is out that the male tour is more profitable (and, even if it was not the case, only the suspicion of it is enough to start a fight), at some point someone will complain that it is not receiving his/her/whatever fair share of the pile.

I see your point -- it is a political, broader point than tennis in itself -- and it is exactly the way to make that point that I am disagreeing with.

 

[Federberg]

^Yup. I don't see why it's incumbent on tennis players to be part of a political movement. Look... I support people (whether gendered or race) getting fair opportunities. But getting the men and women to form a union together feels like trying to get women along for the ride. It would be great to read Moxie's explanation for why this would be in the interest of the men to do so. I don't see a commercial need for it, in fact it could be to their detriment at the moment (although that could change in time). I do hope it's nothing to do with morality or perceived societal good. I'm already disturbed enough by aspects of the MeToo movement that seem to be regressive and an abandonment of genuine equality

 

[britbox]

Real equality has them playing the same tournament draw.

 

[Denis]

I'm with Moxie on this one. It's a simple and exemplary rule to have equal pay. I hardly watch WTA tennis, but a slam win is a slam win. I don't like the message this sends to daughters, wives, sisters etc: you deserve less because of your gender. Screw that.

 

[Federberg]

I'm with Moxie on this one. It's a simple and exemplary rule to have equal pay. I hardly watch WTA tennis, but a slam win is a slam win. I don't like the message this sends to daughters, wives, sisters etc: you deserve less because of your gender. Screw that.

I think the appropriate message to send to women is that you're the equal of men. You don't need men to help you to assert that truth. All of a sudden it seems to me we're trying to maintain that truth but insisting on protections for women that seem to contradict that. Unless you're telling me the WTA or a women's union on it's own is somehow incapable of making appropriate negotiations. I don't see any evidence of that. I'll be honest, I don't want the pollution of on court coaching to ever come to mens tennis so I'll militantly oppose any "joint" project amongst the players

 

[Denis]

I think the appropriate message to send to women is that you're the equal of men. You don't need men to help you to assert that truth. All of a sudden it seems to me we're trying to maintain that truth but insisting on protections for women that seem to contradict that. Unless you're telling me the WTA or a women's union on it's own is somehow incapable of making appropriate negotiations. I don't see any evidence of that. I'll be honest, I don't want the pollution of on court coaching to ever come to mens tennis so I'll militantly oppose any "joint" project amongst the players

I don't think about 'helping'. I see it this way: you organise a tennis tournament and you hand out prizes. All you are doing is showing your equal appreciation for both winners and players of both genders, without making a distinction saying oh we like men better so we are going to give them higher prize money.

It just gives the wrong message.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm with Moxie on this one. It's a simple and exemplary rule to have equal pay. I hardly watch WTA tennis, but a slam win is a slam win. I don't like the message this sends to daughters, wives, sisters etc: you deserve less because of your gender. Screw that.

You fail to distinguish between equal opportunity and equal money. I am fine with WTA players even making more money that ATP players, if that is what the market dictates. It should be natural and not artificially forced.

 

[mrzz]

without making a distinction saying oh we like men better so we are going to give them higher prize money.

But what if we like the men's game better? I won't spend a nickle to buy a ticket or a stream of WTA matches, but I would for ATP. How do you deal with that?

 

[Federberg]

But what if we like the men's game better? I won't spend a nickle to buy a ticket or a stream of WTA matches, but I would for ATP. How do you deal with that?

Exactly! It's all about what people are willing to pay for. I can't bring myself to watch the WTA now because of on court coaching. I"ll watch women at the slams but that's it

 

[Moxie]

Wow, one stray comment and we're back to the old argument. You guys are very sensitive when we get within arm's length of the equal pay conversation. We've done this to death. There are a lot of more interesting and unexplored aspects to this union idea, like healthcare, retirement fund, having a say in tournament changes, perhaps? Remember when Madrid went to blue clay and some players expressed that they'd like to have been advised earlier, and perhaps have had a say in it. This would have been where a union could come in handy.

 

[Federberg]

Wow, one stray comment and we're back to the old argument. You guys are very sensitive when we get within arm's length of the equal pay conversation. We've done this to death. There are a lot of more interesting and unexplored aspects to this union idea, like healthcare, retirement fund, having a say in tournament changes, perhaps? Remember when Madrid went to blue clay and some players expressed that they'd like to have been advised earlier, and perhaps have had a say in it. This would have been where a union could come in handy.

No no no. You don't get to do that. You were the one who brought it up. You were the one who persisted with it. Don't try and act like we're the ones who are being sensitive. Step up and make your case or retract it, but don't try to back out like that. There's a poster on here who does that. I expect.... more moxie from you

 

[Moxie]

No no no. You don't get to do that. You were the one who brought it up. You were the one who persisted with it. Don't try and act like we're the ones who are being sensitive. Step up and make your case or retract it, but don't try to back out like that. There's a poster on here who does that. I expect.... more moxie from you

I suggested only that they form a union together. GSM brought in equal pay and equal opportunity, then everyone, predictably, piled on.

 

[Federberg]

I suggested only that they form a union together. GSM brought in equal pay and equal opportunity, then everyone, predictably, piled on.

But you then went on about qualifiers for the slams. So clearly it wasn't just an off the cuff remark. That's fine. I wasn't aware of that, and I can't see how that's right? But what does that have to do with a union for men and women? I'm genuinely interested to hear your view on this. Why can't the women sort out this problem for themselves? Please elaborate

 

[Busted]

Lol you have literally no idea what you are talking about. Where you there at the meeting? You are literally full of it. At least we’re honest in speculating.

WTF is that supposed to mean? Everybody is entitled their opinion - and my opinion is that Djokovic is shit-stirring as his career is winding down. The reality is - a union wouldn't happen overnight. There's too many legalities involved in setting one up - especially an international union that would be recogized in every country hosting a tennis tournament. At a guess it's 5-7 years to get the players to agree to it, set it up, work out the legalities, implement it and work out some type of collective bargaining agreement like you see in the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB, etc. By that time Djokovic will be retired and if doesn't work out favorably for the players, then he and millions are safe in Monte Carlo while the then current players are left to deal with the fallout.

For the record - I like Djokovic...which you apparently don't seem to grasp. I just don't think a union can be done without making other changes, too. For instance - if there's a union, then clearly that alters the ATP's role, right? So all of that would have to be sorted out as well. Changes clearly need to be made - but that doesn't mean it needs to be a union.