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

[Moxie]

This is a very interesting piece on the history of the gender divide in tennis and how the money splits up. It's worth a full read, and it's very fair. This is not to drag out the debate, but clarify a few things.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/03/unequal-say/57937/#.VvHeBrT5nzI

 

[Federberg]

As far as I'm concerned Novak said nothing worth apologising for. Perhaps he was a little naive to bring up the issue at such a time, but it is a valid issue as far as I can see.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Moxie you would know by now how flawed your logic has been, just about nobody here disagrees with you one way or another.... it's not personal, and it certainly isn't that 'it bothers guys that women get paid equally', or more ridiculously, that it's not our money.... you sure you know what you are talking about?

Prize money in any given to winners, depending on how much they win. You don't award Fed or Djoker more money than David Ferrer if they win the same event right? the commercial value of course would be reflected differently, via appearance fees and sponsorship. So simply put, prize money is given to the better players (because they win).

Now when it comes to prize money distribution between men and women in any individual event, should the event owner be allowed to allocate money where they see fit? that's the problem these days, they cannot do it because the current social disease (feminism) would disturb such rights, even when it's clear which side brings money for the tournament. You've been relying on single matches (like Serena's USO final) and think you can upsize an exception without limit, but seriously, who are you trying to fool?

Good example with Li Na, the chinese have been very smart with their tennis program. Their sport minister once revealed that they would prefer to train women because it's easier to produce GS winners. If they invest the same none and train the same number of men, they have little chance to produce a male champion.... it's simply tougher to achieve the same in ATP, so you can see why these communist countries (like China and Russia) have only really been successful producing female winners while the men have been nowhere near as successful. It's simply an opportunistic approach, funny you take it as example in your 'equal pay' bible.

Instead you mark my words, women are not as good as men in sports (not just now like you said), they have never been and they never will be. And they'll never be as good innovators, scientists, engineers, leaders etc; by and large. If you take the feminism crap out of your brain, you'll begin to acknowledge and appreciate the 'facts of life'.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

i would be sad if all i can rely on is dodge the facts and sidestep real issues and make up stuff that doesn't exist. In sports where the participants can determine results, where have women come on top? you know sure as hell that gymnastics and figure skating are not objective, because like you said, BECAUSE THEIR BODIES DO MORE BEAUTIFUL THINGS..... thanks for proving my point, sex sells.

putting a man in figure skating, doing exactly the same moves and exactly the same routines, would he still get the same 'popularity'? why not? because it's done in a man's body? i think you know you just defeated yourself here and try to save some face.... by saying women are 'better' at them, better how? can women do moves as difficult as the guys can? if not, why do only women feature? do female models 'walk' better than male models and then why do they feature?

it is exactly because they look good in tight costumes (or without even better). i could care less about playing a hypocrite here, it is what it is. Doesn't matter if it's the 1950s(funny feminists all like to say that when things don't go their way), 2000s or any era, it's always the same.... your 1950s argument is getting old

 

[Federberg]

Andy Murray makes a good counter to Novak's point which I rather like. But I don't think it's a refutation of my point which is more commercially focussed. Murray says something like.. on any given day demand to watch matches will depend on which stars are playing. So Serena will be a bigger draw than his old chum Stakovhsky. That's a fair point. What I am saying is this.. let the tennis authorities set a fair base for matches on a round by round basis which are equal for men and women. I believe that's correct. But then, the stars should get a premium if they are the big draws on a particular day. So on that day, if everyone wants to watch Serena she should be rewarded for her star power. It just seems wrong to me that tickets for a mens final can go for double that of the womens final and everyone says they should get paid the same. That makes no commercial sense at all. As far as I'm concerned this has nothing to do with a battle of the sexes, but kudos to Andy for refining the argument for us, it's about rewarding the stars, which I think is fair. It should be up to the tennis authorities to try to make the sport more financially rewarding for the lower tiers, but it makes no sense (to me) for either the women or the likes of Stakovhsky to simply ride on the coat tails of the biggest draws

 

[Ricardo]

Andy Murray makes a good counter to Novak's point which I rather like. But I don't think it's a refutation of my point which is more commercially focussed. Murray says something like.. on any given day demand to watch matches will depend on which stars are playing. So Serena will be a bigger draw than his old chum Stakovhsky. That's a fair point. What I am saying is this.. let the tennis authorities set a fair base for matches on a round by round basis which are equal for men and women. I believe that's correct. But then, the stars should get a premium if they are the big draws on a particular day. So on that day, if everyone wants to watch Serena she should be rewarded for her star power. It just seems wrong to me that tickets for a mens final can go for double that of the womens final and everyone says they should get paid the same. That makes no commercial sense at all. As far as I'm concerned this has nothing to do with a battle of the sexes, but kudos to Andy for refining the argument for us, it's about rewarding the stars, which I think is fair. It should be up to the tennis authorities to try to make the sport more financially rewarding for the lower tiers, but it makes no sense (to me) for either the women or the likes of Stakovhsky to simply ride on the coat tails of the biggest draws

flawed argument. You need to look at ATP/WTA not individual matches or starts, otherwise you cannot allocate and budget prize money in advance..... so the big 3 wins a final gets more than if Wawrinka does? individually appearance fees and sponsorship already take care of things just fine. Main thing is to identify that fact that ATP is indeed what carries the sport, that WTA has been riding on the coat tails. we are not talking a specific match here and make exception as a rule (are you thinking straight? you are using Moxie's logic !!!), mens tennis is the feature by and large.

Looking from another angle, the only way to be fair is to have truly open tennis competition where anyone can enter regardless of sex and age. You win and become a star if you are good enough, no free organised protection just because you are a 'lady'. The sport will still be big in this format, just without so called WTA stars riding on the coat tails of the male players.

 

[Federberg]

flawed argument. You need to look at ATP/WTA not individual matches or starts, otherwise you cannot allocate and budget prize money in advance..... so the big 3 wins a final gets more than if Wawrinka does? individually appearance fees and sponsorship already take care of things just fine. Main thing is to identify that fact that ATP is indeed what carries the sport, that WTA has been riding on the coat tails. we are not talking a specific match here and make exception as a rule (are you thinking straight? you are using Moxie's logic !!!), mens tennis is the feature by and large.

Looking from another angle, the only way to be fair is to have truly open tennis competition where anyone can enter regardless of sex and age. You win and become a star if you are good enough, no free organised protection just because you are a 'lady'. The sport will still be big in this format, just without so called WTA stars riding on the coat tails of the male players.

I'm just spit balling mate. Don't become another Cali please. I am simply concerned at the lack of correlation between ticket prices and player rewards. Obviously tournaments determining which matches are played on the biggest courts will also influence pricing.

By the way be careful what you wish for, if women start playing in bikini's I for one will switch over and focus on the WTA, and it isn't necessarily the top ranked players that catch my attention... (joke! everyone).

 

[Ricardo]

I'm just spit balling mate. Don't become another Cali please. I am simply concerned at the lack of correlation between ticket prices and player rewards. Obviously tournaments determining which matches are played on the biggest courts will also influence pricing.

By the way be careful what you wish for, if women start playing in bikini's I for one will switch over and focus on the WTA, and it isn't necessarily the top ranked players that catch my attention... (joke! everyone).

joke? feminists will tear you apart for being a sexist! or worse... how dare you support the notion 'sex sells'!!

 

[Ricardo]

This is a very interesting piece on the history of the gender divide in tennis and how the money splits up. It's worth a full read, and it's very fair. This is not to drag out the debate, but clarify a few things.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016/03/unequal-say/57937/#.VvHeBrT5nzI

I hope you are not using Steve as a measuring stick for level headed and meaningful opinion, like you would with figure skating lol. Here is what a poster had to say, surely many would agree he has a point

"This tignor is a world-class coward. He does nothing other than what he's ordered to. He has no say, no views of his own. He signs articles that have to undergo corporate edition and proper PC pandering regardless whether he agrees with it or not. Haven't these people acknowledged that times are changing?? Most people are sick to the marrow of living in fear because of some "culture of offense" where everybody can qualify for a victim and have you sacked from a job for nothing, or have your comments twisted in a way that make you evil incarnated.

Political Correctness must not be confused with politeness. Everybody deserves to be treated with respect. Political correctness is pandering, condescending which in turn becomes insulting and intellectually damaging. As though people were so stupid to not notice the enormous gulf between the ATP tour level and the often-embarrasing displays of the WTA.

And yet you expect people to behave as though "they can't see the difference" and both provide same entertainment value. Provocative, insulting and what Raymond Moore did was give voice to exactly that reality. "

 

[mrzz]

I'm just spit balling mate. Don't become another Cali please. I am simply concerned at the lack of correlation between ticket prices and player rewards. Obviously tournaments determining which matches are played on the biggest courts will also influence pricing.

By the way be careful what you wish for, if women start playing in bikini's I for one will switch over and focus on the WTA, and it isn't necessarily the top ranked players that catch my attention... (joke! everyone).

Bikinis? Almost there... I say only the upper part of the bikini (let just one ball bounce). I am not sure about the WTA, but I would follow the HBRTL (Half Bikini Russian Tennis League) without a problem.

 

[Ricardo]

Bikinis? Almost there... I say only the upper part of the bikini (let just one ball bounce). I am not sure about the WTA, but I would follow the HBRTL (Half Bikini Russian Tennis League) without a problem.

watch out you sexist (or mysogenist), a feminist cougar is going after you meow!!

 

[britbox]

Petra chimes in:

 

[mrzz]

She is angry because she does not qualify for HBRTL.

 

[britbox]

She is angry because she does not qualify for HBRTL.

What's HBRTL?

 

[Moxie]

What's HBRTL?

See Mrzz above. (Half Bikini Russian Tennis League). LOL!

 

[shawnbm]

Been out of town a bit lately. Things have certainly heated up on the boards concerning these comments. I have no crystal ball, but it would seem that since many venues are owned and put on by private entities, they should be able to allocate money as they see fit. If the stats demonstrate that revenue is substantially higher for either tour, I see no sexism in paying that tour more. I can recall a period twenty or so years ago when the WTA certainly seemed more interesting and better in terms of competition than the ATP. I think the special presence of Fedalovic has made the ATP more lucrative the past seven years or so. At events hosted by the tennis associations, policy decisions can be made to equally divide monies as a matter of politics within the tours. That is likewise permissible. At the end of the day, there is no correct answer since the two tours are different and play by different rules. I think if the WTA embraced the same rules as men in terms of five set tennis, teh kind of thing Nole said would not be said. The pure reality is that, in slams, the men have to play longer matches which causes increased wear and tear on the body and spirit. It would seem that said reality alone is grounds enough for pay being unequal, at least at those events.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think anyone seems to have been interested to read the article I posted above, but over the course of the year, the women ARE paid less. Where they are paid the same is at some, not all of the dual-events, including the Majors. That was Andy Murray's point: when they play the same event, they should get the same money. At separate events, they are run by the respective associations, and the ATP is richer.

 

[shawnbm]

I read most of Steve's article, and I tend to agree with a lot of it. I have no issues with same prize money at the majors or at events like IW or Miami--totally fine with it. But for those who question it, it would be more persuasive if the women played best of five sets like the men do. It is all relative since women play women and men play men. But, that is largely water under the bridge since the tours have made the decision to award prize money equally at those events, notwithstanding the men having longer matches in terms of sets to be won to move on. I am cool with that, but it leaves room for argument for the naysayers.

 

[Federberg]

I don't buy the idea that women need to play five sets to earn the same amount of money. To me it all boils down to which tour customers are willing to pay more to watch, and that alone. This is the entertainment industry after all. Same in any other business, a lawyer whose firm charges £500 per hour would rightly expect to earn more money than another one who works for a firm which charges £100 per hour. That's my point

 

[shawnbm]

I don't buy the idea that women need to play five sets to earn the same amount of money. To me it all boils down to which tour customers are willing to pay more to watch, and that alone. This is the entertainment industry after all. Same in any other business, a lawyer whose firm charges £500 per hour would rightly expect to earn more money than another one who works for a firm which charges £100 per hour. That's my point

Yes, but how is that to be determined, and who determines it?