Djokovic vs ATP

[Busted]

I don't get it. When exactly should players become more politically active. It makes perfect sense when he's acquired credibility and authority to advocate the way he feels. I respect the fact he's trying to leave the game better for other players. That's exactly what people like Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King did

I didn't say he shouldn't...just that I don't agree with what he wants to do. But hey...being a professional tennis player isn't my J-O-B. It's not me he has to convince that it's a good idea. And let's get real here - this isn't about social injustice or mistreatment of the players or some fundamental evil in tennis. It's about M-O-N-E-Y. I'm all for everybody getting their fair share of the money...but I'm not going to pretend like we're talking about fighting oppression, racism or gender inequality which is what Ashe and BJK were advocating for. Although, to her credit, BJK did fight for the women to get equal pay - but...that's a social injustice issue and not just a monetary issue per se. Let's just agree to disagree...

 

[Busted]

The union here is not so much for medical provider or pension fund (although they could also be discussed at some point). The primary purpose of the union (say, UTP union of tennis players) would be to negotiate with the tournaments (ATT, association of tennis tournament organizers) and the TOU (tennis organizing unit) for what they think are good for themselves. Of course all of these are fictitious entities as of now. UTP should worry only about tennis palyer's interests. ATT should worry only about tournament organizer's interests. TOU, should worry only about promoting the game of tennis and making rules related to conditions of contest, ranking, doping etc. With clear separation of concerns, there will be more integrity and no conlict of interest.

Right...I understand that. I'm just saying that some unions do more than just negotiate salaries/compensation for their members. What I'm trying to ask is how far does he want this union to go? If you're being asked to join a union don't you want to know what all the union is going to do for you? In some trades you don't get a choice. You can't be an independent operator. Is it going to be mandatory that all players belong to the union? Obviously there's a lot of unknowns since it was just recently brought up. As a long-time tennis fan it'll be interesting to see where this goes - and how hard the ATP pushes back.

 

[Federberg]

I didn't say he shouldn't...just that I don't agree with what he wants to do. But hey...being a professional tennis player isn't my J-O-B. It's not me he has to convince that it's a good idea. And let's get real here - this isn't about social injustice or mistreatment of the players or some fundamental evil in tennis. It's about M-O-N-E-Y. I'm all for everybody getting their fair share of the money...but I'm not going to pretend like we're talking about fighting oppression, racism or gender inequality which is what Ashe and BJK were advocating for. Although, to her credit, BJK did fight for the women to get equal pay - but...that's a social injustice issue and not just a monetary issue per se. Let's just agree to disagree...

That's fair enough. I don't see why there's a problem if it is about money. These guys have a short shelf life, they should go for it, why does it have to be a morality play? It's funny how we as individuals will vigorously defend ourselves if we don't believe we're getting paid fair value, but we have an issue with sports stars. It frankly doesn't matter if the sums are huge. We all have a fair idea what we're worth. So they're just supposed to sit there and take it if they feel like some executives are taking an unfair piece? Screw that...

Besides, if the rumours are right, this is more about getting a better distribution for the lower ranks. I heartily applaud that.

 

[El Dude]

Good stuff, @Federberg. We seem to agree on most things political (from what I've read of your views)...maybe we should stick to that rather than tennis?

 

[Moxie]

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

I threw that in following on the notion of equal opportunity, and the usefulness of a union. At least it's a point that hasn't been hashed to death. The equal pay part makes me tired (because we've been over it so much) and sad (because so many guys get there knickers in a twist at the notion, and go about talking smack against the WTA players.) As to a union, the men formed the Association of Tennis Professionals, and when asked, denied the professional women players access. I think that was sexist and wrong, but that's the way it went down. As far as an actual union, though, I don't know of any union that is exclusionary based on gender, not even what was once called the International Ladies' Garment workers union. It's a question of strength in numbers. I don't think that the women can't have a separate union and negotiate effectively in their own interest, not at all. I just don't think it's a great idea to have gender-segregated unions, or anywise segregated unions. Seems to me that what anyone here who objects is really worried about is that it lead to equal pay, unfairly. (There, I said it. But Holy Crap folks get worked up about how money that isn't their own gets spent.) But ATP and WTA players will figure this all out. Seems in the nascent stages, in all cases.

 

[Moxie]

Good stuff, @Federberg. We seem to agree on most things political (from what I've read of your views)...maybe we should stick to that rather than tennis?

That's kind of hilarious! I'm picturing you guys at a family Thanksgiving. Ground rules: politics and religion OK, but absolutely NO talk of tennis.

 

[Moxie]

 

[britbox]

I threw that in following on the notion of equal opportunity, and the usefulness of a union. At least it's a point that hasn't been hashed to death. The equal pay part makes me tired (because we've been over it so much) and sad (because so many guys get there knickers in a twist at the notion, and go about talking smack against the WTA players.) As to a union, the men formed the Association of Tennis Professionals, and when asked, denied the professional women players access. I think that was sexist and wrong, but that's the way it went down. As far as an actual union, though, I don't know of any union that is exclusionary based on gender, not even what was once called the International Ladies' Garment workers union. It's a question of strength in numbers. I don't think that the women can't have a separate union and negotiate effectively in their own interest, not at all. I just don't think it's a great idea to have gender-segregated unions, or anywise segregated unions. Seems to me that what anyone here who objects is really worried about is that it lead to equal pay, unfairly. (There, I said it. But Holy Crap folks get worked up about how money that isn't their own gets spent.) But ATP and WTA players will figure this all out. Seems in the nascent stages, in all cases.

Do you believe in gender seperated tours?

 

[Moxie]

Do you believe in gender seperated tours?

No, I think it's good the way it is.

 

[Horsa]

I threw that in following on the notion of equal opportunity, and the usefulness of a union. At least it's a point that hasn't been hashed to death. The equal pay part makes me tired (because we've been over it so much) and sad (because so many guys get there knickers in a twist at the notion, and go about talking smack against the WTA players.) As to a union, the men formed the Association of Tennis Professionals, and when asked, denied the professional women players access. I think that was sexist and wrong, but that's the way it went down. As far as an actual union, though, I don't know of any union that is exclusionary based on gender, not even what was once called the International Ladies' Garment workers union. It's a question of strength in numbers. I don't think that the women can't have a separate union and negotiate effectively in their own interest, not at all. I just don't think it's a great idea to have gender-segregated unions, or anywise segregated unions. Seems to me that what anyone here who objects is really worried about is that it lead to equal pay, unfairly. (There, I said it. But Holy Crap folks get worked up about how money that isn't their own gets spent.) But ATP and WTA players will figure this all out. Seems in the nascent stages, in all cases.

Wouldn't the fairest idea be a more meritocratic system where players were paid more or less depending on their results whether they were male or female? It might make some who were just playing around rather than trying their best actually play ball properly. It would be good for motivation as they'd have an incentive to do their utmost best which would make a better game for everyone to watch in the 1st place. Then again questions would need to be asked like how much basic rate would be & how much bonus is paid out for each win & the basic rate & bonuses would have to be kept the same for both genders.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Wouldn't the fairest idea be a more meritocratic system where players were paid more or less depending on their results whether they were male or female? I.

What game are you following? o_O

The prize money in tennis works in exactly the same way. Players get paid depending on their results.

See for example the distribution for AO .

 

[Horsa]

What game are you following? o_O

The prize money in tennis works in exactly the same way. Players get paid depending on their results.

See for example the distribution for AO .

In that case equality between genders doesn't matter because it already exists.

 

[Moxie]

What game are you following? o_O

The prize money in tennis works in exactly the same way. Players get paid depending on their results.

See for example the distribution for AO .

I don't think you've really read Ann correctly. She said based on results and merit. It's wildly more idealistic and complicated than anything on offer. However, you know how when you get a big upset, and everyone wonders how come the player doesn't get more credit than just the 2nd round, or whatever? This would solve that.

 

[Federberg]

Wouldn't the fairest idea be a more meritocratic system where players were paid more or less depending on their results whether they were male or female? It might make some who were just playing around rather than trying their best actually play ball properly. It would be good for motivation as they'd have an incentive to do their utmost best which would make a better game for everyone to watch in the 1st place. Then again questions would need to be asked like how much basic rate would be & how much bonus is paid out for each win & the basic rate & bonuses would have to be kept the same for both genders.

The problem is the real world has a nasty way of destroying the best laid plans. What's fair for one person isn't fair to another. What we have right now is a commercial venture with a coercive morality twist, and it's clear some of the male players (interestingly Federer agrees with Novak on the player share argument, although not the gender one) see a lot of unfairness and presumption in the current system.

We can try to impugn their motivations and call them selfish (as I recall one poster from earlier in the thread has seemed to be doing), but personally I don't think that's the case. These guys work their socks off from childhood to be the best at what they do, if I were in their position I would be quite offended to see people like us, who sit on our couches and watch them play, imposing their own arbitrary values on how these guys should feel. This brings me to the man-woman thing.... it is the nature of the sport that the men compete for their own title and the women compete for theirs, they therefore create their own separate and distinct narratives and the unfolding dramas dictate the interest in the respective tournaments. The moment you have these competing narratives you simply shouldn't - in a meritocratic system - impose the same prize money, it would be the opposite of fairness.

Don't get me wrong, it makes sense politically, it makes sense to send a message to society about the values we would like to teach our daughters and sisters. But it makes no sense whatsoever meritocratically. Don't get me wrong, I am not one who assumes that the men should be paid more, I would just say they should be paid what they're worth. Now a politician would say that they are worth an equal amount. That's politics, and it's a politics I believe in by the way. But look at it from the commercial perspective of a sportsman who has a short shelf life of earning power. They are conducting their business, their efforts are part of a commercial venture, not a politico-moral one. If one tour is generating the bulk of the commercial interest then that tour should be rewarded for it, we shouldn't impose a rule where one tour effectively subsidises another. If society wants to add it's own fairness component on to prize money then those who feel strongly about equal prize money should put their money where their mouth is and make a contribution to the less commercially successful tour's prize money bucket. I suspect we all know that even the strongest advocates for equal pay would not make the contributions necessary to right what they perceive as as a wrong. The very folks who would argue that men and women should be paid the same prize money would still pay more to see the men play, I know, because in the past I've been one of those people!

Let me ask this question (and this is what changed my mind), if gender wasn't a part of the discussion, would anyone of us really dispute what the men want? Imagine squash players arguing that squash pros should be paid the same amount as tennis players because their sport is just as good as tennis? Crazy right?

 

[Federberg]

By the way... and you'll love the irony of this... I wrote that, while watching the Kerber - Sharapova match in preference to the Djokovic - Ramos V match :mail:

 

[Moxie]

The problem is the real world has a nasty way of destroying the best laid plans. What's fair for one person isn't fair to another. What we have right now is a commercial venture with a coercive morality twist, and it's clear some of the male players (interestingly Federer agrees with Novak on the player share argument, although not the gender one) see a lot of unfairness and presumption in the current system.

We can try to impugn their motivations and call them selfish (as I recall one poster from earlier in the thread has seemed to be doing), but personally I don't think that's the case. These guys work their socks off from childhood to be the best at what they do, if I were in their position I would be quite offended to see people like us, who sit on our couches and watch them play, imposing their own arbitrary values on how these guys should feel. This brings me to the man-woman thing.... it is the nature of the sport that the men compete for their own title and the women compete for theirs, they therefore create their own separate and distinct narratives and the unfolding dramas dictate the interest in the respective tournaments. The moment you have these competing narratives you simply shouldn't - in a meritocratic system - impose the same prize money, it would be the opposite of fairness.

Don't get me wrong, it makes sense politically, it makes sense to send a message to society about the values we would like to teach our daughters and sisters. But it makes no sense whatsoever meritocratically. Don't get me wrong, I am not one who assumes that the men should be paid more, I would just say they should be paid what they're worth. Now a politician would say that they are worth an equal amount. That's politics, and it's a politics I believe in by the way. But look at it from the commercial perspective of a sportsman who has a short shelf life of earning power. They are conducting their business, their efforts are part of a commercial venture, not a politico-moral one. If one tour is generating the bulk of the commercial interest then that tour should be rewarded for it, we shouldn't impose a rule where one tour effectively subsidises another. If society wants to add it's own fairness component on to prize money then those who feel strongly about equal prize money should put their money where their mouth is and make a contribution to the less commercially successful tour's prize money bucket. I suspect we all know that even the strongest advocates for equal pay would not make the contributions necessary to right what they perceive as as a wrong. The very folks who would argue that men and women should be paid the same prize money would still pay more to see the men play, I know, because in the past I've been one of those people!

Let me ask this question (and this is what changed my mind), if gender wasn't a part of the discussion, would anyone of us really dispute what the men want? Imagine squash players arguing that squash pros should be paid the same amount as tennis players because their sport is just as good as tennis? Crazy right?

The men's tour doesn't subsidize the women's. And the squash comparison is risible, aside from being insulting to the women. I don't think you understand the basic question of what the men are asking for.

 

[Moxie]

By the way... and you'll love the irony of this... I wrote that, while watching the Kerber - Sharapova match in preference to the Djokovic - Ramos V match :mail:

Two former AO champs vs. the match where the opponent is given no chance to win? Why not?

 

[Federberg]

The men's tour doesn't subsidize the women's. And the squash comparison is risible, aside from being insulting to the women. I don't think you understand the basic question of what the men are asking for.

If their prize money is taken out of the same pot and the men generate the bulk of commercial interest then they do subsidise it

 

[Federberg]

The men's tour doesn't subsidize the women's. And the squash comparison is risible, aside from being insulting to the women. I don't think you understand the basic question of what the men are asking for.

Oh? I don’t understand? Educate me. Bearing in mind no one knows precisely what was discussed. Presumptuous much?

 

[Moxie]

If their prize money is taken out of the same pot and the men generate the bulk of commercial interest then they do subsidise it

Their prize money is only equal in the tournaments where they play together, or, well, most of them. Because it can't be said who generates the most revenue. In the tournaments where they play completely separately, the prize money is what the market will bear. And there are ones where the women's one has bigger prize money. Because that's what the market dictates.