Novak thinks that the ATP should fight for more prize money than the women

[Ricardo]

Figure skating and gymnastics. You may not like them, but the women are the box office. No surprise, they play to women's strengths. (Flexibility, artistry.)

how are they better? come on, you know better than that. Figure skating and gymnastics have no true objective ways to determine winners, a win is not determined by the participants but by umpires who don't even compete. Women are the box office in those just like they are in modelling. Why do you think they are dressed in such exposed way while doing it? the men can do much more advanced moves, and any move of higher difficulty, but they aren't box office, why do you think that is?

lets say, sex sells no?

 

[Moxie]

it should be obvious that you don't mix sponsorship money into this.

I am kidding nobody here, Serena is only somebody in WTA) because she's got the better fh (and bh) and the more mph's on her serve. It applies to WTA, it applies to ATP and it applies to tennis in general. Logically putting her into open competition is the way to realise her real worth, if she can still fill the seats when some ATP 200's keep thumping her, i'd say kudos to her.

Women competing in the ATP is not a thing. I don't know why you even bring it up. This is what you don't get. Sponsorship DOES matter. Ability to compete across genders doesn't. You've completely missed the commercial viability quotient. What you're worth on the market matters more than if you can beat X-player across genders. Or even within your gender. Tomas Berdych has had a lovely career, but he isn't worth half what Kei Nishikori is. Why? The market. Serena, Maria and even Venus are wildly more marketable than current or former #4's Ferrer or Wawrinka. Argue all you want with me about how well the men play tennis compared to men, or all the rest. It's window dressing. The answer is marketability, and there are solid women that have it. Li Na is going to have single-handedly changed the face of tennis is 10-15 years when all those kids in China who were inspired by her start turning pro. Mark my words. Ergo: equal pay.

 

[Federberg]

It seems those who invest their money have counted up the beans, and the sponsorships. And who puts bottoms in the seats. And they have decided to give women an equal share. There are plenty of co-ed tournaments, and it's impossible to tell exactly who sells what tickets. What you are proposing, I think, is just petulant. I've given you plenty of reasons why female tennis players sell tickets and get women to watch sports, which is valuable to the people who care about the money. I know a lot of you guys don't love the women's game, and I'm not a huge fan of it at the moment, but I can't help if it shrivels you all, somewhat, that the women still bring in a lot of the bacon. As I said before, it doesn't have everything to do with how hard you hit a serve.

I don't think anyone is making the case for men getting paid for hitting harder or more physicality. Put it this way... in the UK we have these plays around Christmas times, called "panto", they're really just local christmas entertainment. Price of admission is usually about say... £5 per ticket. And it's more of a charity thing than anything else. On the other hand you have the West End serious theatre. Those are sold out constantly and are hugely popular with tourists. Those tickets can cost anything from £50 - £150, even more. There's a reason for that.. people pay more to see the good stuff.

Now whether WTA tennis or ATP tennis is more entertaining at any given time is not a gender issue, it's an entertainment issue. I know for a fact that at Wimbledon last year, debenture tickets for the men's final were going for about £3,000, whereas the womens final went for about £1,500. I think it's absurd that the winners got the same money. That's not capitalism, and most of the feminists I know would probably cringe at the thought of being given what almost seems like charity.

I have no problem with the ITF constructing some sort of base scale, which is equal for men and women. But then when ticket sales and sponsorship is added into the mix, the tour at any given time that is generating more revenue should be able to reward their players with higher prize money. The fact that at this point in time it's the ATP that would be vastly wealthier is neither here nor there. As I said before, I recall a time when the WTA had Capriati, Graf, Hingis et al.. and the ATP had Rafter, Agassi sometimes, Korda, Rios etc... I was watching the WTA matches with more interest. Of course things changed when Fedal came into it's own. From a purely entertainment point of view there's no way the WTA would be able to afford to pay the women the same as the ATP can pay the men, which means that there is an implicit subsidy going on, and I don't see why that should be the case.

This is NOT about men versus women, this is about entertainment and pure business logic. Women can't have their cake and eat it. Because if things are on a genuinely equal footing it's just a case of bums on seats

 

[Moxie]

how are they better? come on, you know better than that. Figure skating and gymnastics have no true objective ways to determine winners, a win is not determined by the participants but by umpires who don't even compete. Women are the box office in those just like they are in modelling. Why do you think they are dressed in such exposed way while doing it? the men can do much more advanced moves, and any move of higher difficulty, but they aren't box office, why do you think that is?

lets say, sex sells no?

It makes me a bit sad that you can't see that for more than "sex sells." Yes, a problem is that the judging is so subjective, but they are sports that favor women's strengths. Can't you just be generous for a moment? Try to stop being a dick for a second and be empathetic.

Women excel in flexibility. Men excel in strength and ability to jump. Most sports favor men's abilities, i.e., strength, jumping, and running short distances. Also, men are acculturated to play sports, and so the field to pick from is wider. Women will never play basketball like men. We have a lower center of gravity and can't jump as high. That's a fact of nature. That's a sport that was created based on men's strengths. But women have made great basketball players, and there have been some epic teams. It's gaining traction

As to gymnastics, and figure-skating: these really do play into women's strengths. Women have generally been the ones who break out as stars from those sports. And it's not because they look good to men in tight costumes. It's because they do such stunning things with their bodies. And the sports are basically not as appealing when men do them. Or to men, in general. These are women's sports. Basically because women are better at them, and women see themselves in those sports. I would stick ballet in here, which I think is fair, because it is considered harder than most sports. Men have some peacock roles, with their high-jumping, but it is the women that feature, because their bodies do more beautiful things.

In the sports that feature women's strengths, they do star. It's just that men don't value those sports.

 

[mrzz]

It seems those who invest their money have counted up the beans, and the sponsorships. And who puts bottoms in the seats. And they have decided to give women an equal share. There are plenty of co-ed tournaments, and it's impossible to tell exactly who sells what tickets. What you are proposing, I think, is just petulant. I've given you plenty of reasons why female tennis players sell tickets and get women to watch sports, which is valuable to the people who care about the money. I know a lot of you guys don't love the women's game, and I'm not a huge fan of it at the moment, but I can't help if it shrivels you all, somewhat, that the women still bring in a lot of the bacon. As I said before, it doesn't have everything to do with how hard you hit a serve.

I am being petulant as I am pretty sure of my point. You cannot afford to be that petulant because you are not that sure of your point.

Moxie, you know better than me that today, given the so called political correctness of the world, to give equal prize money is a marketing move. This does not mean, for sure, that they have counted the beans and found out that the WTA is an equally better commercial product than the ATP. If you want a barometer, count the TV transmissions, pay attention to the channels broadcasting and the sponsors. It is a massacre. WTA, in general, is B or C class in that regard.

And, yes, you gave plenty of reasons why female tennis players sell tickets and get women [and men] to watch sports, but even if true, the point is that male players sell MORE tickets and get MORE people to watch them.

And, by the way, the difference between ATP and WTA is much more than the serve. Put an ATP player ranked bellow #30 to play Serena, or Azarenka, deprive him of the second serve and he would still win comfortably.

Anyway, you are being very courageous to come out and argue alone against a lot of people, a thing that a lot of men would not be willing to do the same so blatantly. I take my hat off to you because of that.

Unfortunately, we are right.

 

[britbox]

It's comparing apples with oranges.... and I like both fruits, but the "equal opportunity" type of angle is a complete nonsense. If it was about equality, everybody would enter the same tournament... and we kinda know what would happen if that was the case. In a sense, womens tennis has been ringfenced and they get a good deal out of it. Prize Money should be based on commercial viability... and that alone.

 

[britbox]

Raymond Moore has resigned as CEO of IW over controversy sparked by his remarks. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...teps-down-amid-outrage-over-tennis-sexism-row

The fact that he's resigned really annoys me. I wish some of these people stood their ground and let the tide wash over. He was expressing an opinion... the -ism mob bring down another.

 

[Moxie]

@mrzz: I'm glad you appreciate what a lonely fight this is against you guys. I've had it time and again across several forums. At least most of you don't feel the need to take on women in general like Ricardo. But, respectfully, I still disagree. The point about the serve or the forehand is a rhetorical flourish. @britbox, it's not about equal opportunity or political correctness. It is about commercial viability. That is exactly my point. I don't think that the powers that be are only covering their asses. They cover their assets. There are women that are vastly more marketable than plenty of the men. Perhaps you missed my point that women are the consumers in the first world, and there is no sport that allows them to be as brightly reflected as tennis. It doesn't matter how well they play, but how much they can be stars and sell products to women. You guys keep trying to compare the women to the men's game. I've admitted that the women's game, at this point in time, isn't as strong. I don't think most sports are as great as mens tennis has been over the last few years. This has not always been the way, and it won't be forever. But even still, women's tennis has, and has had great players and great rivalries. That attracts fans and sells products. When the men and women play together, I don't know how you'd like to re-organize the money to benefit those who are more commercially viable. That would have to go player by player, and not by gender. Or would you prefer to go match by match, according to how entertaining they are? I also made an example of the finals at IW on Sunday. For as flat as Serena was, she had a great fight at the end, and Vika played valiantly, which was great to see, after her injury issues. And they both had great speeches. It was all good theater. Compare that to the men's final, which was a boring blowout, with no drama involved. Should we award more money to the women, and take money away from the men? How would you like to organize that?

My points aren't about political correctness. They are about the market. And I am right.

 

[britbox]

^ I like that post and agree with a lot of it... but it's also a departure from the "women deserve equal prize money" line. They deserve it if it's commercially viable. It seems to be stated that it is as a matter of fact. I don't think it's on the same level commercially at the moment.

 

[Moxie]

The fact that he's resigned really annoys me. I wish some of these people stood their ground and let the tide wash over. He was expressing an opinion... the -ism mob bring down another.

Another way of looking at it is that the very fact that he, a 69-year-old man from South Africa felt so comfortable saying such locker room boy things means that it is said, which is appalling to many. Women should "go down on their knees"...are you kidding me? And he talked about the Muguruza and Bouchard as being appealing in both tennis and physically. Is this 1950? Men might talk like that over a beer, or on a tennis forum, but if you run a co-ed tennis event that wants to be the 5th Slam you can't really talk like that in a press conference. Particularly after you finally got the Williams sisters to come back. And if you think the difference is only "political correctness," then I give up on you.

 

[Federberg]

The fact that he's resigned really annoys me. I wish some of these people stood their ground and let the tide wash over. He was expressing an opinion... the -ism mob bring down another.

Well.... I don't know mate. Suggesting that women should get down on their knees? That was so way off the reservation I actually laughed and read the thing again to make sure it wasn't a joke I was misunderstanding. If he hadn't resigned, Larry Ellison would have been forced to show him the door

 

[Moxie]

^ I like that post and agree with a lot of it... but it's also a departure from the "women deserve equal prize money" line. They deserve it if it's commercially viable. It seems to be stated that it is as a matter of fact. I don't think it's on the same level commercially at the moment.

You clearly didn't read all of my arguments, which is fair enough. Some of it with Ricardo was rather tedious. But my point has never been "women deserve equal prize money" full stop. I have supported it with facts about why women contribute to the marketability of tennis. Always.

 

[Denis]

I'm with @Moxie on this one, at least at the Slams. These are events organized by the ITF indiscriminately for both sexes. I would also think there is a role model function for tennis in society, especially when it comes to slams.

I think women make much less in tennis actually, in part cause the wta is run so poorly.

 

[britbox]

Another way of looking at it is that the very fact that he, a 69-year-old man from South Africa felt so comfortable saying such locker room boy things means that it is said, which is appalling to many. Women should "go down on their knees"...are you kidding me? And he talked about the Muguruza and Bouchard as being appealing in both tennis and physically. Is this 1950? Men might talk like that over a beer, or on a tennis forum, but if you run a co-ed tennis event that wants to be the 5th Slam you can't really talk like that in a press conference. Particularly after you finally got the Williams sisters to come back. And if you think the difference is only "political correctness," then I give up on you.

It is political correctness, the wording was a bit foolish but regardless of how the guy might have been doing his job on a day to basis... he's basically walked because the media has zoned in on a few choice words... and I'd suggest he's been doing his job rather well - IW has evolved into arguably the 5th or 6th biggest tournament on the planet... but hey, who cares... let's focus on a couple of choice words and sell the guy down the river.

 

[britbox]

And that is the whole thing about political correctness... good people doing good jobs getting slaughtered and run out of town because of a few words that the media dial in on.

 

[Moxie]

It is political correctness, the wording was a bit foolish but regardless of how the guy might have been doing his job on a day to basis... he's basically walked because the media has zoned in on a few choice words... and I'd suggest he's been doing his job rather well - IW has evolved into arguably the 5th or 6th biggest tournament on the planet... but hey, who cares... let's focus on a couple of choice words and sell the guy down the river.

The guy only took over as CEO last year, so he doesn't get credit for the success of Indian Wells as a tournament. A "few choice words?" You should listen to the press conference. It's more than a few, and they were very poorly chosen.

 

[britbox]

The guy only took over as CEO last year, so he doesn't get credit for the success of Indian Wells as a tournament. A "few choice words?" You should listen to the press conference. It's more than a few, and they were very poorly chosen.

OK, I didn't know he had been in that position for such a short spell... but regardless, I did hear what he had to say... and I thought he was simply expressing an opinion... the WTA players were riding in the slipstream of the ATP... That was the crux, yes? Wording aside.

 

[mrzz]

Well.... I don't know mate. Suggesting that women should get down on their knees? That was so way off the reservation I actually laughed and read the thing again to make sure it wasn't a joke I was misunderstanding. If he hadn't resigned, Larry Ellison would have been forced to show him the door

C'mon... people are focusing on a figure of language. They are reading it as "women should kneel before men". I am with britbox, he should have stood his ground. And I agree with him. WTA players, and lower ranked ATP players, should thank Federer and Nadal, and should thank a lot. They sold more tickets, and everyone benefited from that. He probably knows the tickets flow and thus knows exactly what he is talking about.

 

[Moxie]

OK, I didn't know he had been in that position for such a short spell... but regardless, I did hear what he had to say... and I thought he was simply expressing an opinion... the WTA players were riding in the slipstream of the ATP... That was the crux, yes? Wording aside.

Yes, and then talking about the physically appealing attributes of Muguruza and Bouchard...in the sense that tennis ability is indistinguishable from sex appeal. As I've said before, I understand that the WTA is riding on the slipstream of the ATP...at the moment. But you could put men's tennis of the last few years over lots of sports. But it's not like men's tennis is always this good. Or will be 2 years from now.

 

[britbox]

Well, you can't have it both ways Moxie.... If we are talking about commercial viability then that does come into it. Anna Kournikova didn't make her millions from prize money... and I doubt it was the first world female consumer that was propping up her commercial viability.