Djokovic vs ATP

[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...

You do realise that equal pay is an injustice itself, as you essentially reward lesser players the same.....BJK is a piece of shit, no conscience whatsoever.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Wta players are lesser players, that even you can confirm. That’s why paying lesser players same money is unfair. People pay most money to watch the best players play, I don’t care what you like to think otherwise.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Then why don’t they pay all groups the same? Since nothing can be proven in coeds.

 

[Moxie]

You do realise that equal pay is an injustice itself, as you essentially reward lesser players the same.....BJK is a piece of shit, no conscience whatsoever.

Wta players are lesser players, that even you can confirm. That’s why paying lesser players same money is unfair. People pay most money to watch the best players play, I don’t care what you like to think otherwise.

Ricardo, you are a misogynist, and everyone here knows it. These are not logical points, they are freak-outs, because you're losing the argument. Insult is a last resort. You have the option to debate points, but you have chosen to go with hysteria and diatribe.

 

[Ricardo]

Ricardo, you are a misogynist, and everyone here knows it. These are not logical points, they are freak-outs, because you're losing the argument. Insult is a last resort. You have the option to debate points, but you have chosen to go with hysteria and diatribe.

That is the only comeback you feminists ever got, when it comes to discuss facts you have nothing to show for so you just throw the same old shit labels around. You do the same to everyone you lose arguments to, yeah sure....women haters, sexists, mysognists, discrimination, blah blah blah. Why am I not surprised that dim wits only have this as comeback? Grow some brain and conscience then you can see truth.

 

[Ricardo]

Now tell me it’s not a fact WTA players are not lesser players. If not, they should compete with anyone. If you can’t compete with the Fedalvics, you are not the best. Simple as that.

 

[Moxie]

That is the only comeback you feminists ever got, when it comes to discuss facts you have nothing to show for so you just throw the same old shit labels around. You do the same to everyone you lose arguments to, yeah sure....women haters, sexists, mysognists, discrimination, blah blah blah. Why am I not surprised that dim wits only have this as comeback? Grow some brain and conscience then you can see truth.

Oh, come on, Ricardo. You are a misogynist. I thought you embraced it. But don't give me some bullshit about not discussing facts. I have laid out chapter and verse and all you got is a couple of standard sign-posts. I've said it before: if you want to debate, respond to the posts. If you want to insult, that's on you, but it doesn't reflect well.

 

[Ricardo]

Oh, come on, Ricardo. You are a misogynist. I thought you embraced it. But don't give me some bullshit about not discussing facts. I have laid out chapter and verse and all you got is a couple of standard sign-posts. I've said it before: if you want to debate, respond to the posts. If you want to insult, that's on you, but it doesn't reflect well.

What evidence have you got to give the label? Same evidence that you say women’s match is more compelling? I say you are just always brainless and no, it’s not insult.

Best players get paid the most, debate that.

 

[Moxie]

I say you are just always brainless and no, it’s not insult.

I'd say by anyone's estimation it's an insult. Sadly, it's not really grammatical. So I'll take it for what it's worth.

 

[Ricardo]

I'd say by anyone's estimation it's an insult. Sadly, it's not really grammatically. So I'll take it for what it's worth.

For what it’s worth, you failed to answer the question.

 

[britbox]

Ultimately gender shouldn't come into it. As far as revenue is concerned, it's the entertainment business... whoever is able to negotiate or generate the revenue should share the spoils with their own group who build the product. If women negotiate / generate more than the men then good to luck to them... nobody will be demanding equality.

The reverse should also apply though - IF the men are generating the lions share of revenue then gender shouldn't come into it either.

I don't care about how long people spend on court or the hours worked... it's what the market will pay.

The argument that women should get the same as man for doing the same job is fine in general... but in the terms of tennis or other sports - they are NOT doing the same job. It's a non-argument. The men are playing a different format against bigger, stronger athletes.

If women want to be rewarded equally for doing the same job then play exactly the same competition the men do and they'll be rewarded exactly what they deserve in that context. Trust me, no women want that....

It's about entertainment and revenue generation not gender equality.

Having said that, I like both sexes playing the grand slam events in one overall event (I mean the event as a whole thing, including keeping separate tournaments) and don't begrudge the women getting paid the same - they negotiated it after all.

 

[Moxie]

Ultimately gender shouldn't come into it. As far as revenue is concerned, it's the entertainment business... whoever is able to negotiate or generate the revenue should share the spoils with their own group who build the product. If women negotiate / generate more than the men then good to luck to them... nobody will be demanding equality.

The reverse should also apply though - IF the men are generating the lions share of revenue then gender shouldn't come into it either.

I don't care about how long people spend on court or the hours worked... it's what the market will pay.

The argument that women should get the same as man for doing the same job is fine in general... but in the terms of tennis or other sports - they are NOT doing the same job. It's a non-argument. The men are playing a different format against bigger, stronger athletes.

If women want to be rewarded equally for doing the same job then play exactly the same competition the men do and they'll be rewarded exactly what they deserve in that context. Trust me, no women want that....

It's about entertainment and revenue generation not gender equality.

Having said that, I like both sexes playing the grand slam events in one overall event (I mean the event as a whole thing, including keeping separate tournaments) and don't begrudge the women getting paid the same - they negotiated it after all.

I agree with so much of what you say. Except the bolded above. Mostly in sport, women and men don't play against each other, so that's a non-issue. You're the one that says that it's what the market will bear and pay for. You're trying, within that, to make an argument that men are bigger and stronger, and thereby better athletes. You muddy your own argument with that. It's not the issue, really.

 

[Ricardo]

I agree with so much of what you say. Except the bolded above. Mostly in sport, women and men don't play against each other, so that's a non-issue. You're the one that says that it's what the market will bear and pay for. You're trying, within that, to make an argument that men are bigger and stronger, and thereby better athletes. You muddy your own argument with that. It's not the issue, really.

Clearly you have nothing to argue then. Where does this nitpicking go? BB has already made his position clear, that men are the best players who generate most value and you are just chewing pointless bollocks that go nowhere. See I didn’t insult you with a great description.

 

[Moxie]

Clearly you have nothing to argue then. Where does this nitpicking go? BB has already made his position clear, that men are the best players who generate most value and you are just chewing pointless bollocks that go nowhere. See I didn’t insult you with a great description.

You also didn't argue anything of substance. You're all insult, no bollocks. To use your word.

 

[Ricardo]

You also didn't argue anything of substance. You're all insult, no bollocks. To use your word.

from day 1 my arguement has always been that people watch best players, so they are the most valueable and should be paid the most. Where is your counter argument that makes sense?

 

[Moxie]

from day 1 my arguement has always been that people watch best players, so they are the most valueable and should be paid the most. Where is your counter argument that makes sense?

I've made that argument and why some of them are women. I've already stated a lot of my position, so the one who's lacking in counter-argument is you. You're just too lazy to read back. I'm not retyping mine again for you.

 

[britbox]

I agree with so much of what you say. Except the bolded above. Mostly in sport, women and men don't play against each other, so that's a non-issue. You're the one that says that it's what the market will bear and pay for. You're trying, within that, to make an argument that men are bigger and stronger, and thereby better athletes. You muddy your own argument with that. It's not the issue, really.

It's not muddying the argument.. it's underlining the fact that women should be paid what the market will bear... not because they happen to be women. You seem to be thinking that women should be paid what the men's market will bear...

 

[Horsa]

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

I did actually mean what Moxie said but I'd never seen the pay scheme for tennis players before. That's why I said what I said & backed down. I was saying that it wouldn't be fair to give women equal pay if they're not doing the same amount of work & getting the same results. I do really believe meritocracy is the fairest system but obviously it's very hard to put into practise as there are a lot of questions to be asked & things to be worked out 1st so obviously while the idea would be fairer it would be nigh-on impossible to implement.

 

[Federberg]

I did actually mean what Moxie said but I'd never seen the pay scheme for tennis players before. That's why I said what I said & backed down. I was saying that it wouldn't be fair to give women equal pay if they're not doing the same amount of work & getting the same results. I do really believe meritocracy is the fairest system but obviously it's very hard to put into practise as there are a lot of questions to be asked & things to be worked out 1st so obviously while the idea would be fairer it would be nigh-on impossible to implement.

I actually think the amount of work put in is not relevant. This is entertainment. I've never agreed with some who argue that men should be paid more because they play 5 sets for instance. For me it's all about bums on seats, what advertisers are willing to pay for, what the market will pay for etc. If people want to pay more to watch women, then women should be paid more. What irks me most about the equal pay brigade is that if women were generating more money than men, I reckon most of those folks would argue that they should get paid more than the men. There's a hidden dishonesty in the argument. As things stand, the men clearly generate greater ad revenue, they should therefore get paid more money. I brought up the example of professional squash (a sport at which I was much better than tennis, and still love to watch) and I was told the comparison was risible But there is validity. Those guys work as hard as tennis players. What if they argued their sport was just as good? Should they get paid the same as tennis? Heck no! People don't want to go and watch in the sort of numbers that they do for tennis. It's the market. Same should apply for women's tennis. The idea that it's the same sport is naive in my view, these are competing products, they are often played at the same time. If people switch to the men's channel, that's where the ad revenue is generated, that's who should get paid. Market, market, market..

 

[Federberg]

^btw... televised squash is awesome!! And some of the characters are really interesting. Roger Federer, if you occasionally read stuff on this forum, post-tennis career, you and your management company could take professional squash to the tv masses and make it huge!