Djokovic vs ATP

[Moxie]

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.

See my post #65 in this thread. It's just above the video. You asked me to elaborate, and I did.

 

[Moxie]

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

@Federberg You never addressed your smug remark and obvious prejudice re: these 2 matches, btw.

 

[Federberg]

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.

That's it? That's what you think I missed? Jeepers... I was scouring around thinking there was a hidden page in this thread. You provided an opinion as to why there should be a joint union. One which I rather thought was weak to be honest, so I didn't bother responding directly. I've actually tackled it indirectly in my long post. The men and women have differing and often competing narratives, to a degree these are competing products.

 

[Federberg]

@Federberg You never addressed your smug remark and obvious prejudice re: these 2 matches, btw.

Here we go! The last resort of the identity politician. I'm prejudiced against women now am I? Puh-leeze... let's have a more mature argument before we start to sling the faeces shall we? I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to be self aware enough... and honest enough.. to point out how oddly ridiculous it is for me to have been watching a women's match in preference to a men's one while appearing to be taking a stance that could be injurious to women's tennis. If you didn't see the humour in that, or the obvious implication that my thinking is not gendered then that says a lot more about you than me

 

[Moxie]

Here we go! The last resort of the identity politician. I'm prejudiced against women now am I? Puh-leeze... let's have a more mature argument before we start to sling the faeces shall we? I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to be self aware enough... and honest enough.. to point out how oddly ridiculous it is for me to have been watching a women's match in preference to a men's one while appearing to be taking a stance that could be injurious to women's tennis. If you didn't see the humour in that, or the obvious implication that my thinking is not gendered then that says a lot more about you than me

Forgive me if I missed the humor, then. But then that is the point: the women's match had more intrinsic drama.

 

[Moxie]

That's it? That's what you think I missed? Jeepers... I was scouring around thinking there was a hidden page in this thread. You provided an opinion as to why there should be a joint union. One which I rather thought was weak to be honest, so I didn't bother responding directly. I've actually tackled it indirectly in my long post. The men and women have differing and often competing narratives, to a degree these are competing products.

I'm sorry if you didn't like my argument. But there are no gender-segregated unions.

 

[Ricardo]

Here we go! The last resort of the identity politician. I'm prejudiced against women now am I? Puh-leeze... let's have a more mature argument before we start to sling the faeces shall we? I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to be self aware enough... and honest enough.. to point out how oddly ridiculous it is for me to have been watching a women's match in preference to a men's one while appearing to be taking a stance that could be injurious to women's tennis. If you didn't see the humour in that, or the obvious implication that my thinking is not gendered then that says a lot more about you than me

Hmmmm, you hate women........nothing else matters.

 

[Ricardo]

Forgive me if I missed the humor, then. But then that is the point: the women's match had more intrinsic drama.

It’s your opinion, how does one rate drama? It’s only normal for better players to be paid more, regardless of what you like to see.

 

[Federberg]

I'm sorry if you didn't like my argument. But there are no gender-segregated unions.

That's because in most ventures gender segregation is not the norm. It's interesting to me that in an area where there is gender segregation (where you have stated already that you wouldn't want to see the men playing against the women) you would prefer not to see a union which serves it's specific interests

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

I don't understand why you are meddling in between. I understood and read Ann correctly and she herself has agreed.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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 we are talking about equal pay, do you want WNBA players get paid as much as NBA players. There it is clearly driven by the market.
WNBA is of poor quality and it is exactly the same story in WTA.

 

[Moxie]

If we are talking about equal pay, do you want WNBA players get paid as much as NBA players. There it is clearly driven by the market.
WNBA is of poor quality and it is exactly the same story in WTA.

I didn't think we were talking about equal pay, though it keeps coming up. I think the WNBA is another poor comparison. It has a much shorter history and nowhere near the pedigree of women's tennis. However, if the NBA and WNBA were ever to invent a co-ed event, then yes, I think the compensation should be equal. But they won't. It doesn't suit basketball at all, in the same way it does tennis. So, again, not a good comparison. But what about the $ differentials in US Soccer? US women are far better and more popular, and yet they get paid far less.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I didn't think we were talking about equal pay, though it keeps coming up. I think the WNBA is another poor comparison. It has a much shorter history and nowhere near the pedigree of women's tennis.

It is not important how long a sport was around (otherwise one could argue tennis players should get paid more as it is around from 18xx whereas NBA was formed only in 1946). If WNBA elicits as much interest in viewers as NBA, they would also be getting paid heavy amounts. Fact is that is not the case.

It is the same story with Women's tennis, but they are getting equal pay despite WTA not eliciting as much attention from viewers.

 

[Moxie]

It is not important how long a sport was around (otherwise one could argue tennis players should get paid more as it is around from 18xx whereas NBA was formed only in 1946). If WNBA elicits as much interest in viewers as NBA, they would also be getting paid heavy amounts. Fact is that is not the case.

It is the same story with Women's tennis, but they are getting equal pay despite WTA not eliciting as much attention from viewers.

I disagree that it doesn't matter how long a sport has been around. If it hasn't been an avenue of opportunity, your selection size of athletes will be much smaller, therefore weaker, by aggregate. Tennis is a well-renumerated and well-established sport for women, and so gets better players. The WTA doesn't always get equal pay. But when they play together, you can't say which players bring the people to the seats, or eyeballs to the TV. This argument always forgets the history of women's tennis. Men's tennis is in what is frequently called a "Golden Age." There have been times when it has been less-compelling, by the very contrast. And there have been times when women's rivalries in tennis have been more compelling. Also, regardless of eras, tennis produces marquee players that draw crowds, and some of these are women. Serena Williams is the equivalent of basically all the men not in the Big 4 combined, to a tournament. Sharapova has been similar. And Venus. They sell tickets, and they get people to tune in. That's what matters.

 

[Ricardo]

I disagree that it doesn't matter how long a sport has been around. If it hasn't been an avenue of opportunity, your selection size of athletes will be much smaller, therefore weaker, by aggregate. Tennis is a well-renumerated and well-established sport for women, and so gets better players. The WTA doesn't always get equal pay. But when they play together, you can't say which players bring the people to the seats, or eyeballs to the TV. This argument always forgets the history of women's tennis. Men's tennis is in what is frequently called a "Golden Age." There have been times when it has been less-compelling, by the very contrast. And there have been times when women's rivalries in tennis have been more compelling. Also, regardless of eras, tennis produces marquee players that draw crowds, and some of these are women. Serena Williams is the equivalent of basically all the men not in the Big 4 combined, to a tournament. Sharapova has been similar. And Venus. They sell tickets, and they get people to tune in. That's what matters.

Try again, you cant have illogical bollock as argument. What’s more compelling is only your opinion, doesn’t make it fact.

 

[Moxie]

Try again, you cant have illogical bollock as argument. What’s more compelling is only your opinion, doesn’t make it fact.

Neither can you. Try again. You might actually try an argument...that'd be novel.

 

[Ricardo]

The problem of saying coed events for equal pay is that it applies to other groups as well, like doubles players or mixed doubles. So they can all take advantage of the fact that the best players bring in the crowd most, and live off them. Wta players are way below that best tennis level, only idiots would believe that lower quality players bring in more money.

 

[Ricardo]

Neither can you. Try again. You might actually try an argument...that'd be novel.

Who are you to decide what’s more compelling ? Nothing but your opinion. Best players bring most money, that is just fact of life, learn to deal with facts than just rely on making argument with your feelings.

 

[Ricardo]

People without gender bias would naturally choose to watch better players play, not the other way around. Now let’s see what bollock you will bring.

 

[Moxie]

Who are you to decide what’s more compelling ? Nothing but your opinion. Best players bring most money, that is just fact of life, learn to deal with facts than just rely on making argument with your feelings.

And that's why women get equal money in tennis, at Slams and coed events. It's not my opinion. And you just confirmed it.