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

[mrzz]

Ok, I now what to do: Rogers Cup. There you have two parallel tournaments, side by side, men and women. Data from those tournaments should be a very good sample from our discussion.
And obviously this idea comes from a man (sorry @Moxie, couldn't resist!!!! )

 

[Moxie]

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.

There is a more base reading of that figure of speech, and it has not gone without notice. Not women kneeling before men in the way you mean. If he wanted to say that everyone in tennis should be grateful to Federer and Nadal, (and I'm sure Djokovic should feel slighted here,) then there are a lot of us who would understand that. But he singled out the WTA, making them the lesser child. And a lot here bit on that. I don't believe that anyone knows for sure who buys a ticket to a coed event because they want to see the women or the men, but I will say again: the women's final at the USO last year sold out before any ticket. That was because of Serena.

 

[Moxie]

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.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. She sold tickets and moved advertising. I'm not proud of her, as a tennis player, but you're actually arguing against your own point.

 

[britbox]

I'm not trying to have it both ways. She sold tickets and moved advertising. I'm not proud of her, as a tennis player, but you're actually arguing against your own point.

How?

 

[Moxie]

Ok, I now what to do: Rogers Cup. There you have two parallel tournaments, side by side, men and women. Data from those tournaments should be a very good sample from our discussion.
And obviously this idea comes from a man (sorry @Moxie, couldn't resist!!!! )

But then you're just blustering. You want to prove that women don't sell as many tickets. Well, go back far enough, and we'll see. But I'll ask this question again: why do you care, since it's not your money? Do you men so feel the need to prove that women shouldn't get the same money, just because?

 

[Moxie]

How?

You tell me...I never thought she was beautiful. But we still know who she is, and she's high on the list of tennis earners. Oh, and if by "how" you mean, how are you arguing against your own point: she was still a star. She sold tickets and products to men, in her case.

 

[britbox]

You tell me...I never thought she was beautiful. But we still know who she is, and she's high on the list of tennis earners. Oh, and if by "how" you mean, how are you arguing against your own point: she was still a star. She sold tickets and products to men, in her case.

You got the "How?" interpretation on the last part of the response, but you downsized the "Sex sells" argument earlier from another poster... it IS a factor for sure.

 

[mrzz]

But then you're just blustering. You want to prove that women don't sell as many tickets. Well, go back far enough, and we'll see. But I'll ask this question again: why do you care, since it's not your money? Do you men so feel the need to prove that women shouldn't get the same money, just because?

Good point, but I don't care about the prize money per se. I entered the discussion as people were slandering Djokovic given his comments, and I think he was being reasonable. That was my first post.

Two other things got me in the discussion: the problem itself (how do you find the relevant data?), and the thing that bothers me a lot: people seeing a gender discussion, and gender prejudice, when this is not the point. If we were talking about lower middle class workers, and the difference of income of men and women doing the same job, fine. But we are talking about athletes, lots of them pretty wealthy, most of them at least ok, whose contracts are discussed professionally, based on numbers, treated as products, not as people. There is no gender issue here.

 

[Moxie]

You got the "How?" interpretation on the last part of the response, but you downsized the "Sex sells" argument earlier from another poster... it IS a factor for sure.

Anna Kournikova is a kind of nadir in women's tennis. If you think a CEO of a major tournament aught to be comparing Muguruza and Bouchard to her similarly, I'm surprised. They both have more talent and shouldn't be treated like bimbos. And before you tell me I'm having it both ways, I said he was a poor example, I only said that she was marketable. She is actually a one-off in tennis, I think.

 

[Moxie]

Good point, but I don't care about the prize money per se. I entered the discussion as people were slandering Djokovic given his comments, and I think he was being reasonable. That was my first post.

Two other things got me in the discussion: the problem itself (how do you find the relevant data?), and the thing that bothers me a lot: people seeing a gender discussion, and gender prejudice, when this is not the point. If we were talking about lower middle class workers, and the difference of income of men and women doing the same job, fine. But we are talking about athletes, lots of them pretty wealthy, most of them at least ok, whose contracts are discussed professionally, based on numbers, treated as products, not as people. There is no gender issue here.

I'm not that fussed about Djokovic. Inadvisable, but he'll live through it. He is a bit of a macho man, but I don't think it'll harm his PR. Those who like him, like him for it.

As to pay equality, I agree with you, and it's something tennis has gotten better at, specifically when Federer and Nadal were on the committee. They got the pay distribution better through the ranks, which is good for tennis, as it helps lower-ranked players stay in the game. And this is where the star power conversation comes back in, which is also a bit gender-neutral: the stars draw the crowds and the sponsors, but good competition keeps the game interesting. The important point, and well-made @mrzz is not that the players get totally equal compensation. (That just seems reasonable and easier to me at the coed events,) but that the lower rounds get better compensation. The stars will be fine. They win a lot of prize money and have big endorsements. But if good players can't afford to play and travel, the sport loses good competitors, and that would kill it. It can't be cheap to be a top 200+ tennis player, given that you have to travel the world.

 

[DarthFed]

You tell me...I never thought she was beautiful. But we still know who she is, and she's high on the list of tennis earners. Oh, and if by "how" you mean, how are you arguing against your own point: she was still a star. She sold tickets and products to men, in her case.

I think the scenery on the WTA has gotten a lot better over the years but none can compare to Kournikova. Being that gorgeous only hurt her tennis career so it's kind of hard to hold her lack of achievements against her. She made more money outside of the WTA than she could've dreamed of through just playing tennis.

Anyways this topic has been beaten to death, I don't think Novak said anything wrong. There's the commercial aspect of it (which game is more popular) and then there is the issue of less work yet equal pay for the women who don't play best of 5's at the main events (or anywhere else for that matter). Now the old timer was definitely out of line and it was a poor choice of words.

 

[Federberg]

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.

In the real world language is extremely important mate. And I'm not a part of the pc brigade. But I'll be honest, the image I had when I first read the comment was of Serena and Maria kneeling down and giving Roger and Rafa a treat. I thought it was comical, but if that's what it puts in other peoples heads (assuming they're as filthy as me), then the fella had to go. It's not about being pc, it's about commercial reality. He has damaged the Indian Wells brand just after they had succeeded in getting the Williams sisters on board. That is stunning incompetence, and I'm sure Larry Ellison would have given him his marching orders if he hadn't done the noble thing

 

[mrzz]

In the real world language is extremely important mate. And I'm not a part of the pc brigade. But I'll be honest, the image I had when I first read the comment was of Serena and Maria kneeling down and giving Roger and Rafa a treat. I thought it was comical, but if that's what it puts in other peoples heads (assuming they're as filthy as me), then the fella had to go. It's not about being pc, it's about commercial reality. He has damaged the Indian Wells brand just after they had succeeded in getting the Williams sisters on board. That is stunning incompetence, and I'm sure Larry Ellison would have given him his marching orders if he hadn't done the noble thing

Fair enough, he was indeed incompetent. In the end he sells a product and shot himself in the foot (or maybe it was all staged to get attention...).
About language, you are right. What annoys me is that people are always discussing the secondary points, induced by language, and skipping what is really at stake. Had he said exactly the same thing with different words, there would be no fuss.

 

[Moxie]

Fair enough, he was indeed incompetent. In the end he sells a product and shot himself in the foot (or maybe it was all staged to get attention...).
About language, you are right. What annoys me is that people are always discussing the secondary points, induced by language, and skipping what is really at stake. Had he said exactly the same thing with different words, there would be no fuss.

No, because the content of his comments were patently sexist, overall. It wasn't just the one icky remark. No rewording of the whole thing would have changed its intent. This isn't a misunderstanding, or a misstep. He knew what he was saying, and Larry Ellison can't let him talk like that, it seems.

 

[mrzz]

No, because the content of his comments were patently sexist, overall. It wasn't just the one icky remark. No rewording of the whole thing would have changed its intent. This isn't a misunderstanding, or a misstep. He knew what he was saying, and Larry Ellison can't let him talk like that, it seems.

If all his comments are the ones presented on the link you presented on the first page, I disagree that it was necessarily sexist.

It was stupid, in a commercial sense, yes.

He could say: "I think that the WTA is not a good commercial product. Most of its success and exposition is due to the fact that it is often offered together with the ATP, and 'thank god' the ATP had Federer and Nadal". That is exactly the same thing, and it is not sexist.

About the comments regarding two WTA players... don't blame the messenger. Haven't Wimbledon officials publicly stated that they put "better looking players" (or whatever other wording) on the center courts a few years ago? Doesn't Sharapova earn more sponsorship money than Serena Williams? He was only stupid enough to say out loud one thing a lot of people explore, including the own WTA.

I can see those words in the mouth of a sexist person, but the message is not necessarily sexist. I really don't like this "police" over any statement made.

 

[Federberg]

If all his comments are the ones presented on the link you presented on the first page, I disagree that it was necessarily sexist.

It was stupid, in a commercial sense, yes.

He could say: "I think that the WTA is not a good commercial product. Most of its success and exposition is due to the fact that it is often offered together with the ATP, and 'thank god' the ATP had Federer and Nadal". That is exactly the same thing, and it is not sexist.

About the comments regarding two WTA players... don't blame the messenger. Haven't Wimbledon officials publicly stated that they put "better looking players" (or whatever other wording) on the center courts a few years ago? Doesn't Sharapova earn more sponsorship money than Serena Williams? He was only stupid enough to say out loud one thing a lot of people explore, including the own WTA.

I can see those words in the mouth of a sexist person, but the message is not necessarily sexist. I really don't like this "police" over any statement made.

That's a fair point. But in the real world we had to play the game. He didn't, so he has to be punished. That's just the way it is

 

[Moxie]

If all his comments are the ones presented on the link you presented on the first page, I disagree that it was necessarily sexist.

It was stupid, in a commercial sense, yes.

He could say: "I think that the WTA is not a good commercial product. Most of its success and exposition is due to the fact that it is often offered together with the ATP, and 'thank god' the ATP had Federer and Nadal". That is exactly the same thing, and it is not sexist.

About the comments regarding two WTA players... don't blame the messenger. Haven't Wimbledon officials publicly stated that they put "better looking players" (or whatever other wording) on the center courts a few years ago? Doesn't Sharapova earn more sponsorship money than Serena Williams? He was only stupid enough to say out loud one thing a lot of people explore, including the own WTA.

I can see those words in the mouth of a sexist person, but the message is not necessarily sexist. I really don't like this "police" over any statement made.

But there is something to be said for how you phrase something, as it indicates how you think. In any case, I recommend that you listen to the tape. I'm not sure how it plays in Brazil or England or South Africa, but to American ears it was shocking. As we were watching the tennis and this came out on Sunday, Patrick McEnroe said immediately that the guy has to resign. All of the commentators, male and female, were angry and stunned.

 

[Denis]

I saw Novak issued apologies on his facebook page. That's a nice gesture, I guess, but not really necessary. I think he is entitled to his opinion and I did not perceive it as sexist or anything. There is truth to the point that the men's game is commerically more attractive these days, although I wouldn't argue for a different level of pay because of it.

 

[mrzz]

@Moxie and @Federberg: I know that I am sounding a bit "radical", and I know that odds are high that the given person who said those things is indeed a jerk and/or sexist. And I know that in the "real world" there are some phrases that you simply cannot, or should not, say. But it is precisely this "real world", who classifies arbitrarily (and often stupidly) words as "offensive", and reacts only to the surface and appearance of things, that I do not like, and actively choose to disagree with. Until this person explicitly states that women are inferior or some equivalent atrocity, or acts as such, he is not sexist to me (again, stupid for sure).

You are completely right. Moxie, when you say that you're wording reflects the way you think. But I am sure you know that context, background, and a lot of other factors influence your wording. And, mainly, that you can not make a good judgement based on just a few sentences.

But enough is enough, we made our points quite clearly I guess. It is always a pleasure debating with you, as I always learn a thing or two (word of the day that I learned: blustering).

 

[Moxie]

I saw Novak issued apologies on his facebook page. That's a nice gesture, I guess, but not really necessary. I think he is entitled to his opinion and I did not perceive it as sexist or anything. There is truth to the point that the men's game is commerically more attractive these days, although I wouldn't argue for a different level of pay because of it.

I think it was necessary, because he's world #1, a big ambassador for the sport, and he caught flak for what he said, from current and past players, as well as in the media. (Tennis.com said he made more unforced errors in his press conference than in his match.) It was far more mild than what Moore said, but impolitic, careless and ill-advised. In fairness, I'm sure he was asked about it in the presser, and he has said the adrenaline of the post-match caused him to misstate his position. I'm sure in future he'll remind himself to pick his moments to weigh in on controversial subjects, and not be goaded into it without preparation.