Djokovic vs ATP

[Federberg]

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.

Your correction is merited, although I suspect you know I was referring to slams

 

[Federberg]

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.

Oh? Which equivalent level women’s tournament generates more prize money than the men’s?

 

[Ricardo]

Oh? Which equivalent level women’s tournament generates more prize money than the men’s?

Ultra-marathon.

 

[Moxie]

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

From what we understand, the men are talking about forming a union. The upshot about getting more money for the players "seems" to be that the only get a small percentage of what the tournaments take in. And the generous speculation/some rumors are that the idea is to get more pay for the lower-ranked players. The equal pay with women thing only came up in our discussion here, because someone (um, me) foolishly brought women into the conversation, and only suggesting that the form a union together. And now, once again, and completely boringly, some of the men on this forum, yourself included, are afraid that someone is trying to give the women more money than they "deserve." It doesn't seem to be at all what is on the table for discussion in terms of what Djokovic is bring up with the ATP (#bloodyunlikely.) But I'll say this again: I don't know why you guys get yourselves so worked up at a whiff of equal pay in tennis. It isn't your money. Why do you care so much? Anyway, the issue of equal pay is basically over. As I mentioned, in all but 2 of the coed tournaments (I think,) the prizes are equal, though in some the number of entries to qualifying isn't.

 

[Horsa]

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?

You mean in an ideal world meritocracy would rule but we don't live in an ideal world so total meritocracy wouldn't work. To be fair some women can be as good as men but it would take them to push the bar higher & really prove themselves to get where they deserve to be.

To answer your question I don't think so. I agree with what you say. It's just I'm a big believer in meritocracy.

 

[Moxie]

Ultra-marathon.

Ha...I should have known you'd rise from the dead for this one. I turn around 3 times and say "equal pay" into a mirror just to invoke you.:lulz2:

 

[Ricardo]

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 why BJK is a piece of shit. She knows full well higher level brings more money but chose to use fake social justice to force the issue which means that ‘equal’ prize is real injustice to players of higher level. She has no conscience and is just there to hunt down anything or anyone against her twisted agenda (ie Margaret Court).

 

[Ricardo]

Ha...I should have known you'd rise from the dead for this one. I turn around 3 times and say "equal pay" into a mirror just to invoke you.:lulz2:

It’s your lucky day then moxie, haven’t been around for ages until today.

 

[Moxie]

Your correction is merited, although I suspect you know I was referring to slams

It isn't only the Slams.

 

[Moxie]

It’s your lucky day then moxie, haven’t been around for ages until today.

Not luck, Beelzebub...I invoked you. This is why you hate women...because we're witches. :devilfinger:

 

[Federberg]

It isn't only the Slams.

Of course it's not just the slams, but we both know that the subject of equal prize money is pretty much only relevant to the slams (I know there are a few exceptions).

 

[Ricardo]

Huge respect for Djokovic to be not diplomatic to these PC garbages though, and he knows he is paying a big price for it...like not getting the schedule he wanted or not being able to play at Rod Laver.

 

[Federberg]

Huge respect for Djokovic to be not diplomatic to these PC garbages though, and he knows he is paying a big price for it...like not getting the schedule he wanted or not being able to play at Rod Laver.

It turns out he actually wanted day slot versus Monfils. He didn't think Monfils would be able to last

 

[Moxie]

Of course it's not just the slams, but we both know that the subject of equal prize money is pretty much only relevant to the slams (I know there are a few exceptions).

I don't know why you'd say it was only relevant at the Slams. Certainly it's been more news-worthy. That's the reason I think it's a greater triumph at co-ed events like IW and Miami.

 

[Federberg]

I don't know why you'd say it was only relevant at the Slams. Certainly it's been more news-worthy. That's the reason I think it's a greater triumph at co-ed events like IW and Miami.

Lol! You did see me qualify that with " a few exceptions" right? Feel free to actually argue the merits of my argument rather than try to nitpick at the edges. Kudos to you, it's a great debate tactic, but as I'm genuinely interested in the topic (and willing to change my mind), let's get to the meat of it please

 

[Ricardo]

Not luck, Beelzebub...I invoked you. This is why you hate women...because we're witches. :devilfinger:

Again accusation based on what? Yeah ok I support that women get more money no matter what, so no more hate women bs?

 

[Moxie]

Lol! You did see me qualify that with " a few exceptions" right? Feel free to actually argue the merits of my argument rather than try to nitpick at the edges. Kudos to you, it's a great debate tactic, but as I'm genuinely interested in the topic (and willing to change my mind), let's get to the meat of it please

Well, then why don't you reply to my other posts, which are more to the meat of the topic, including the one where you asked me to illuminate yesterday? You're the one that's nitpicking. Or at least missing the important posts by overlooking.

 

[Federberg]

From what we understand, the men are talking about forming a union. The upshot about getting more money for the players "seems" to be that the only get a small percentage of what the tournaments take in. And the generous speculation/some rumors are that the idea is to get more pay for the lower-ranked players. The equal pay with women thing only came up in our discussion here, because someone (um, me) foolishly brought women into the conversation, and only suggesting that the form a union together. And now, once again, and completely boringly, some of the men on this forum, yourself included, are afraid that someone is trying to give the women more money than they "deserve." It doesn't seem to be at all what is on the table for discussion in terms of what Djokovic is bring up with the ATP (#bloodyunlikely.) But I'll say this again: I don't know why you guys get yourselves so worked up at a whiff of equal pay in tennis. It isn't your money. Why do you care so much? Anyway, the issue of equal pay is basically over. As I mentioned, in all but 2 of the coed tournaments (I think,) the prizes are equal, though in some the number of entries to qualifying isn't.

Actually we would argue you're the one who gets afraid of the question about whether equal pay is commercially justified. I'm not impressed by your attempt to imply we're anti-women. I'm a libertarian, I have a natural tendency to reject moral/political coercion in a commercial setting. Gender has nothing to do with it, I would make the same argument if women were generating more interest. And what scares me is that I think that a lot of women would then see the sense of my argument

 

[Federberg]

Well, then why don't you reply to my other posts, which are more to the meat of the topic, including the one where you asked me to illuminate yesterday? You're the one that's nitpicking. Or at least missing the important posts by overlooking.

What important posts, what am I supposed to have missed. I've seen you make some joke comment about El Dude and myself and then post a video. What else? Again... reactionary and diversionary... not trying to take the argument on. Good debating tactic. But I would genuinely like to read what you think. Why is it insulting to women, when I would argue the same if the commercial realities were in their favour? It's the commercial reality not the gender that exercises me.

 

[Moxie]

Actually we would argue you're the one who gets afraid of the question about whether equal pay is commercially justified. I'm not impressed by your attempt to imply we're anti-women. I'm a libertarian, I have a natural tendency to reject moral/political coercion in a commercial setting. Gender has nothing to do with it, I would make the same argument if women were generating more interest. And what scares me is that I think that a lot of women would then see the sense of my argument

Again, you skipped over what the topic is, and went to the notion of my defending women's position in tennis. I have made more "impressive" arguments in the past and I'm not really interested in making them again, as I said before. Even better arguments fall on deaf ears. I'm not arguing equal pay. We're talking about the men's union, and its goals. I made the argument, which you asked me to, why the women should be included, and you have ignored that.