Djokovic vs ATP

[Horsa]

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..

I agree to a point. The amount of work put in should factor because if they're not trying people notice & they want to see a good game. If it's not a good game people won't want to watch (except the odd few who just watch because they fancy 1 of the players. I've known some people like that) My point was that having a meritocratical system would be fairer than just giving women equal pay anyway. I did understand what you said in the 1st place & adjusted my view to accommodate your facts. I was just explaining my initial thoughts. I get your point. They make their money by viewers. If more people pay to view men's tennis that's where the money is & that's who should get most. My more meritocratical idea is more suitable in a place where productivity is more important.

 

[Horsa]

^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!

I don't know. Unlike tennis which I've both played & watched, squash is only a game I've played.

 

[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.

Is there an argument that men aren't bigger, stronger, faster athletes in general at the very highest level? It's a fact... and if you presume it's not the case then why do you advocate a separate tour for women?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

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.

No, Moxie was just trying to muddy the waters as she does not have a coherent argument. Moxie was actually talking about the situation where different players have different level of difficulty matches, even though it is the same round and perhaps, players who win difficult matches should be paid more money than the other players. It has nothing to do with the difference between men's and women's tennis as that issue remains the same in both circuits.

At one point of time in history players used to get more ranking points for defeating players they are not supposed to defeat and it is no longer the case. But, that has no relevance in this debate.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Is there an argument that men aren't bigger, stronger, faster athletes in general at the very highest level? It's a fact... and if you presume it's not the case then why do you advocate a separate tour for women?

She wants to have the cake and eat it too. She wants a separate tour for women, but a single union and equal pay.

 

[Horsa]

No, Moxie was just trying to muddy the waters as she does not have a coherent argument. Moxie was actually talking about the situation where different players have different level of difficulty matches, even though it is the same round and perhaps, players who win difficult matches should be paid more money than the other players. It has nothing to do with the difference between men's and women's tennis as that issue remains the same in both circuits.

At one point of time in history players used to get more ranking points for defeating players they are not supposed to defeat and it is no longer the case. But, that has no relevance in this debate.

I agree with her to a certain extent but not to the extent that female players should have equal pay to men if they're not working as hard & getting the same results but then again I also agree if more people are paying to watch men than women then obviously men need more. I saw the women v men argument & thought meritocracy would be fairer & I actually think your penultimate sentence is a better idea & would disagree with your last sentence. If you broaden things a bit I can see the links however subtle they might seem to you.

 

[Horsa]

Is there an argument that men aren't bigger, stronger, faster athletes in general at the very highest level? It's a fact... and if you presume it's not the case then why do you advocate a separate tour for women?

I'm very sorry for interrupting when you weren't talking to me but I wouldn't say so. I'd say you were narrowing it down a bit saying it's just male athletes that are stronger at the highest level than women but that normally men are stronger than women. I'm not showing disrespect to people of my gender but science tells us that women normally don't gain muscle as easily as men even with a lot of hard work due to the male hormone testosterone making men stronger normally. We normally tone up differently. You do get strong women & there are always exceptions to this like everything. If men & women played against each other then things could be worked out more meritocratically & the women who deserved equal pay to men would be able to get it.