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

[Federberg]

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

I brought up the example of debenture tickets at Wimbledon. There is a clear valuation differential between the women's and men's matches. It's clear for all to see. I must confess though that Andy Murray's point about individual matches makes determining an effective answer more tricky. On its face it doesn't strike me as fair that they should be paid the same if demand to see matches of one tour is so much greater than another. But what do you do with the also rans in both tours? Argh! I'll leave it to the experts

 

[shawnbm]

Me too

 

[mrzz]

Well, Moxie, I read now and I disagree with most of it, to be honest. To me is extremely hypocritical.

But first, as you pointed out, why the hell do we care? It is not our money...

I, for one, after you asked I realized that I really do not care with question per se, but I do get annoyed when I see arguments which seems inaccurate, or dishonest. I think this article is both.

First, off course Djokovic would say that he wants more than the women... in how many parts the cake (player's money) is split? In two, the more one gets, the less the other gets. It is as simple as that. He feels he deserves more, period. I do not want to go back to this discussion, the point I want to make here is simple: both parties are fighting for their share, it is just another way of saying "I want more than them". They don't have fixed salaries, they fight for shares. Saying "I want more", as Tignor suggests, is exactly the same as "I want more than them", just more hypocritical.

And, second, I am sorry, but this talk that the event is dual gender so we cannot establish who deserves more is again hypocritical. We, here at the board, cannot, as we do not have data. They do. It is completely possible, given that there are a lot of split tournaments from which you can gather data, you have different sessions, you can make polls, etc and etc. It is possible, but people do not want do admit it.

But, again, as moxie said: why do we care?

 

[Denis]

Interesting: I read today that some WTA players have no problem playing five sets at slams (one of the things they get dissed for by people such as most posters above), but the ITF doesn't want it. Erakovic a WTA player from New Zealand said ITF is blocking this, presumably because they couldn't get all the matches done on the show courts.

Another argument against equal pay taken away.

 

[Moxie]

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

I think the best of 5 v. best of 3 was put to bed long ago. Remember that what tennis players do, day in and day out, is work hard, in their training, cardio, gym, etc. They basically all do the same work. What differs is how effective they are. That's why the superstars get more money. And they don't get paid on an hourly. There are very few tournaments where the men play best of 5, so it's essentially a moot point.

 

[DarthFed]

^ They just so happen to play 5 sets at the biggest events, the ones that easily attract the most viewership and pay out the most. So yes it is relevant. If there are enough women on the tour in favor of it they should start to play 5 sets at the majors.

 

[Moxie]

Well, Moxie, I read now and I disagree with most of it, to be honest. To me is extremely hypocritical.

But first, as you pointed out, why the hell do we care? It is not our money...

I, for one, after you asked I realized that I really do not care with question per se, but I do get annoyed when I see arguments which seems inaccurate, or dishonest. I think this article is both.

First, off course Djokovic would say that he wants more than the women... in how many parts the cake (player's money) is split? In two, the more one gets, the less the other gets. It is as simple as that. He feels he deserves more, period. I do not want to go back to this discussion, the point I want to make here is simple: both parties are fighting for their share, it is just another way of saying "I want more than them". They don't have fixed salaries, they fight for shares. Saying "I want more", as Tignor suggests, is exactly the same as "I want more than them", just more hypocritical.

And, second, I am sorry, but this talk that the event is dual gender so we cannot establish who deserves more is again hypocritical. We, here at the board, cannot, as we do not have data. They do. It is completely possible, given that there are a lot of split tournaments from which you can gather data, you have different sessions, you can make polls, etc and etc. It is possible, but people do not want do admit it.

But, again, as moxie said: why do we care?

I'm surprised you "disagree" with the Tignor article I posted, as it is not an opinion piece, it is mainly historical. I'd be interested to hear what you think in it is dishonest.

Your point about arguing for shares is not without merit. But it makes me think you didn't read that article carefully. Across the year, the women make less. Shouldn't that make all of you guys happy, and make you feel justified? It's what you've asked for. As to Djokcovic, it was a bit petulant of a multi-millionaire, multi-Slam winner to be arguing that he deserves a greater piece of the pie. Perhaps he meant to argue in favor of his fellows on the ATP, but given his chance to make himself clearer, he still didn't say that. They way he did it made him look a little mean, a bit money-grubbing, and not friendly towards his colleagues across the engender-aisle.

 

[Moxie]

^ They just so happen to play 5 sets at the biggest events, the ones that easily attract the most viewership and pay out the most. So yes it is relevant. If there are enough women on the tour in favor of it they should start to play 5 sets at the majors.

I'd be totally game to see the women play best of 5 at the majors. Just stand by and see how popular that will be amongst the posters.

I don't think the best of 5 has anything to do with the women, or how they get paid, but I will say this. I love it, but I think that there is a decent chance it is going the way of the dinosaur. My father, who loved tennis, and baseball above all things, which is the slowest game there is, couldn't deal with the 4-5 hour matches. Men only play best of 5 in Majors, and DC. I'd be surprised if it's not gone completely in the next 20 years. Shorter attention spans. The need to sell advertising. I don't think the market will bear it much longer.

 

[Ricardo]

I'm surprised you "disagree" with the Tignor article I posted, as it is not an opinion piece, it is mainly historical. I'd be interested to hear what you think in it is dishonest.

Your point about arguing for shares is not without merit. But it makes me think you didn't read that article carefully. Across the year, the women make less. Shouldn't that make all of you guys happy, and make you feel justified? It's what you've asked for. As to Djokcovic, it was a bit petulant of a multi-millionaire, multi-Slam winner to be arguing that he deserves a greater piece of the pie. Perhaps he meant to argue in favor of his fellows on the ATP, but given his chance to make himself clearer, he still didn't say that. They way he did it made him look a little mean, a bit money-grubbing, and not friendly towards his colleagues across the engender-aisle.

typical feminist rant, criticise anyone who won't buy into the feminism crap. everyone has already commented on that Djoker does have a point, his argument was based on commercial viability not some kind of biased attitude.... unlike the feminists

 

[Federberg]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/03/24/advantage-wta-womens-tennis-really-thank-federer-nadal/?

interesting read...

 

[Federberg]

Lol! Someone just made the point to me that if it's right that male and female tennis players are paid the same, then male porn stars should complain about earning far less that the female stars. I wonder if Billie Jean King will take up the mantle for their cause?

 

[mrzz]

^Is there a "like 50 times" button?

Ok, Moxie, I did read it a bit in a hurry, and yes, I was in a bad mood. However, as in most cases, even if the text is more descriptive than anything, the author always has room to sneak in some judgments and opinions, and he surely did that.

As you well know, I do disagree with the reasons given for equal pay (not equal pay per se, naturally), but I concede, and thank you for in fact, the point that you raised about why does it matter so much to people. I had to sincerely ask myself if equal pay per se bothered me, and luckily enough (and I hope that you believe me) I found out that no, it does not bother me. But, again as it is easy to see, the kind of reasoning I usually see behind it does bother me.

So I have a proposition: Equal pay for everyone: male, female, single players, doubles players, senior tour players, wheelchair players. It is a joint event, we'll never know for what matches the people are there for...

 

[Federberg]

^Is there a "like 50 times" button?

Ok, Moxie, I did read it a bit in a hurry, and yes, I was in a bad mood. However, as in most cases, even if the text is more descriptive than anything, the author always has room to sneak in some judgments and opinions, and he surely did that.

As you well know, I do disagree with the reasons given for equal pay (not equal pay per se, naturally), but I concede, and thank you for in fact, the point that you raised about why does it matter so much to people. I had to sincerely ask myself if equal pay per se bothered me, and luckily enough (and I hope that you believe me) I found out that no, it does not bother me. But, again as it is easy to see, the kind of reasoning I usually see behind it does bother me.

So I have a proposition: Equal pay for everyone: male, female, single players, doubles players, senior tour players, wheelchair players. It is a joint event, we'll never know for what matches the people are there for...

Actually that's not a bad shout. Why can't disabled tennis players get equal pay too? That's discrimination isn't it??

 

[Moxie]

Actually that's not a bad shout. Why can't disabled tennis players get equal pay too? That's discrimination isn't it??

Well, that misses the point that Britbox and I have both made, which is that the monies are distributed based on ability to draw the crowds. That's why doubles and wheelchair events have smaller purses. That's market-based.

I know I will never change the opinions of basically anyone on this thread. But let me lay something out that we have learned over the course of it, which should make most rather happier: 1) The ATP is richer than the WTA precisely because it draws more attention and, therefore, revenue. 2) This means that, over the course of the year, the ATP players will take their bits of larger purses, and therefore, they ARE paid more. 3) At some, but not all, dual-gender events, the purses are equal. There is a good argument that they should be, and Andy Murray makes the point compellingly. When I buy a ticket to the USO, no one asks me what percentage of my viewing will be of women's and what of men's matches. And frankly, I don't usually know beforehand. 4) What tennis players get paid is based on how much they win. This is the same across genders. When Federer and Nadal were player representatives to the ATP, they pushed for more even distribution of the monies, so that the lower ranked players got a bigger pay day in early rounds. Personally, I think this is good for the game, as it keeps more players able to stay in. If Djokovic has a beef, it might be with that decision, and not the very few events that offer equal prize money.

In sum, the men DO make more, at this point in time. So what's the complaint? (And the best of 5 is a weak argument.)

 

[mrzz]

Well, that misses the point that Britbox and I have both made, which is that the monies are distributed based on ability to draw the crowds. That's why doubles and wheelchair events have smaller purses. That's market-based.

I know I will never change the opinions of basically anyone on this thread. But let me lay something out that we have learned over the course of it, which should make most rather happier: 1) The ATP is richer than the WTA precisely because it draws more attention and, therefore, revenue. 2) This means that, over the course of the year, the ATP players will take their bits of larger purses, and therefore, they ARE paid more. 3) At some, but not all, dual-gender events, the purses are equal. There is a good argument that they should be, and Andy Murray makes the point compellingly. When I buy a ticket to the USO, no one asks me what percentage of my viewing will be of women's and what of men's matches. And frankly, I don't usually know beforehand. 4) What tennis players get paid is based on how much they win. This is the same across genders. When Federer and Nadal were player representatives to the ATP, they pushed for more even distribution of the monies, so that the lower ranked players got a bigger pay day in early rounds. Personally, I think this is good for the game, as it keeps more players able to stay in. If Djokovic has a beef, it might be with that decision, and not the very few events that offer equal prize money.

In sum, the men DO make more, at this point in time. So what's the complaint? (And the best of 5 is a weak argument.)

Yes, the best of 5 is a weak argument.

But, Moxie (I promisse it is my last one here), you cannot have it both ways: You start saying that monies (just learned the plural of money, thanx again Moxie) are distributed based on ability to draw the crowd, then you switch to the fact that you do not know beforehand which matches you're going to see... well, this includes doubles too. You may argue that everyone knows that doubles are secondary events. Well... women's finals are played on saturdays... so, sorry, WTA is secondary too. In the "real world" there is only one main event.

I am starting to feel bad to keep disagreeing, but, in all honesty, now that I am paying attention this whole thing is making my stomach turn around. I just came by an article on tennis.com about a twitter exchange between Murray and Stakhovsky. The journalist included some other posts, all against, and ridiculing, the Ucranian, as his low ranking would be somehow detrimental to his opinions. But the point is that Murray (and I hate to give my personal opinion about anything other than the sporting side of a player) was stupid enough to not even understand the point Stakhovsky was trying to make, and went on to suggest that the fact that him (SS) could not drag big crowds to events, was an argument in favour of equal pay.

Honestly, it sounds to me that he is a complete douchebag trying to be seem nice by advocating in favor of equal pay. If he was really nice, he would have treated his fellow player decently to begin with, even if he would disagree with him.

Again, I do not give a damn about who makes more money. But I really can't stand hypocrisy. If you want, come out and say that you are in favor of equal pay because it is the way you think things should be, because it sets a good example, etc. Don't come with lame excuses that surely a top ATP player, which is tired of playing right after some WTA match and seeing the seats fill when his match starts, know that are flawed.

 

[britbox]

Interesting article here after Novak Djokovic talked with Billie Jean King and Chris Evert:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/t...y/news-story/9db4b200a8742b48a3d2d74163f6ff26

It's even more interesting because the headline is absolutely wrong... he never said once that he supports equal prize money... he just clarified his comments.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, the best of 5 is a weak argument.

But, Moxie (I promisse it is my last one here), you cannot have it both ways: You start saying that monies (just learned the plural of money, thanx again Moxie) are distributed based on ability to draw the crowd, then you switch to the fact that you do not know beforehand which matches you're going to see... well, this includes doubles too. You may argue that everyone knows that doubles are secondary events. Well... women's finals are played on saturdays... so, sorry, WTA is secondary too. In the "real world" there is only one main event.

I am starting to feel bad to keep disagreeing, but, in all honesty, now that I am paying attention this whole thing is making my stomach turn around. I just came by an article on tennis.com about a twitter exchange between Murray and Stakhovsky. The journalist included some other posts, all against, and ridiculing, the Ucranian, as his low ranking would be somehow detrimental to his opinions. But the point is that Murray (and I hate to give my personal opinion about anything other than the sporting side of a player) was stupid enough to not even understand the point Stakhovsky was trying to make, and went on to suggest that the fact that him (SS) could not drag big crowds to events, was an argument in favour of equal pay.

Honestly, it sounds to me that he is a complete douchebag trying to be seem nice by advocating in favor of equal pay. If he was really nice, he would have treated his fellow player decently to begin with, even if he would disagree with him.

Again, I do not give a damn about who makes more money. But I really can't stand hypocrisy. If you want, come out and say that you are in favor of equal pay because it is the way you think things should be, because it sets a good example, etc. Don't come with lame excuses that surely a top ATP player, which is tired of playing right after some WTA match and seeing the seats fill when his match starts, know that are flawed.

I really don't think I'm trying to have to both ways. When I say I don't know how many men's or women's matches I'll see, you can fairly bet there won't be any doubles or wheelchair matches. I went to one doubles match in my life, and it was because Navratilova was playing in one of her last USOs. The place was mobbed. That was ALL about Navratilova. And I have seen one wheelchair match. It was very interesting to see how they navigate, and I really admired the effort. But they are not why we go to a dual gender event. We go for the singles. But we have different favorites amongst the men and women, and choose amongst them. I left a Federer match after I'd seen the SABR in action, because I wanted to see Muguruza play. It was a smaller stadium, but one of the bigger ones, and it was pretty packed.

Murray said that, in a mixed event, people would chose to watch Serena play over Starkovsky. It was an example. Perhaps impolitic of him to chose a particular player as an example, but is he wrong? Having it both ways is saying that we shouldn't worry about political correctness, and then condemning Murray for his example.

I'm not sure what hypocrisy you see, but I hope it is not mine. I don't say that equal pay should happen in every event. I have explained how women get paid less across the year. And don't put words in my mouth. The system as it exists functions fairly, IMO. The argument has only been against those who denigrate it, as it exists. And those who chose, bidden by nothing really, to talk badly of women's tennis. That's what the argument is. Equal pay is a distraction, but not the main point. Choosing to speak out of turn, for no reason, against the women's game is where the outrage has come from.

You have also ignored a couple of my other well-delineated points.

 

[Moxie]

Lol! Someone just made the point to me that if it's right that male and female tennis players are paid the same, then male porn stars should complain about earning far less that the female stars. I wonder if Billie Jean King will take up the mantle for their cause?

I know you're making a joke, but that's not actually a market that can ever change. No amount of men "mounting" an effort will ever change the lack of female viewership. Therefore, the women have a lock, as stars. B-)

 

[Moxie]

I know you're making a joke, but that's not actually a market that can ever change. No amount of men "mounting" an effort will ever change the lack of female viewership. And 85-90% of men are straight. Therefore, the women have a lock, as stars. B-)

 

[Ricardo]

Well, that misses the point that Britbox and I have both made, which is that the monies are distributed based on ability to draw the crowds. That's why doubles and wheelchair events have smaller purses. That's market-based.

I know I will never change the opinions of basically anyone on this thread. But let me lay something out that we have learned over the course of it, which should make most rather happier: 1) The ATP is richer than the WTA precisely because it draws more attention and, therefore, revenue. 2) This means that, over the course of the year, the ATP players will take their bits of larger purses, and therefore, they ARE paid more. 3) At some, but not all, dual-gender events, the purses are equal. There is a good argument that they should be, and Andy Murray makes the point compellingly. When I buy a ticket to the USO, no one asks me what percentage of my viewing will be of women's and what of men's matches. And frankly, I don't usually know beforehand. 4) What tennis players get paid is based on how much they win. This is the same across genders. When Federer and Nadal were player representatives to the ATP, they pushed for more even distribution of the monies, so that the lower ranked players got a bigger pay day in early rounds. Personally, I think this is good for the game, as it keeps more players able to stay in. If Djokovic has a beef, it might be with that decision, and not the very few events that offer equal prize money.

In sum, the men DO make more, at this point in time. So what's the complaint? (And the best of 5 is a weak argument.)

your wrong opinion will not change of those whose opinions are right, why should it? the complaint is that, prize money shouldn't be equal.... if you can't even grasp that, what's the point of even trying to argue? sigh!!