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

[Ricardo]

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.

Murray himself said he is a feminist (an idiot really), no wonder Novak (and Fedal) man-handles him just about every time. The guy is mentally weak and has something not right between the ears, guess Lendl dropped him for good reasons..... and you think his opinion is some kind of example? btw nobody is talking badly of women's tennis, they point out truth you can't handle.... then of course you just accuse with false label. So why is there nobody talking badly of man's tennis? because it is and always will be the best you can get..... i suspect.

 

[Federberg]

^I can recall a time when men's tennis sucked big time. It fluctuates, sometimes the women's game is more interesting

 

[Rides]

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.

The fact that the women's finals are played on Saturday does not make the event a secondary one. What it does is make it possible for the tournament to sell twice as many tickets. One main event Saturday, the other on Sunday.

 

[mrzz]

As I said in my last that it would be my last on the subject, I'll keep my word, even if some replies are begin to be made.

Anyway, Moxie, I 'm writing this to just to say that, no, I do not think that you are being hypocritical. I just disagree with you. Other ones, in this public debate, yes, I think they are being highly hypocritical.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Am I the only one who doesn't care at all about this debate? Like, no offense to Novak, an all-time great, but I don't give a rat's ass if a multi-millionaire athlete thinks he should be getting paid more.

 

[Vince Evert]

Thanks britbox for link to the article. Think Chris Evert and BJK were spot on.


Evert cited cultural differences between Djokovic growing up in Europe and Americans embracing equality for women as a principle in a different time frame.

“I think a lot of the comments are cultural,” Evert said. “I don’t hear that too much from the American men’s tennis players.

“I just think America was the first country. The Europeans took the cue from America. Americans respected equality in a lot of life levels earlier than Europe did.” King noted Djokovic has had a young son recently and said that and culture could play a role in his remarks.

“My prayer is that most of the guys have daughters,” King said.

“I think it changes them.”


There was a time I was all for equal prizemoney but not how tennis is these days. Put simply women's tennis is just not competitive as it used to be. To me it's simple. For the Grand Slams, either the women play 3/5 sets or the men play 2/3 sets. Personally would like to see the men play best-of-3 and
the final kept as BO5.

 

[Federberg]

^The day they make slams for men best of 3 is the day I'll start to take them less seriously.

I find it very frustrating that the substance of what Novak is saying is being distorted by so many people. Novak never talked about the reward system in terms of the physicality of the game (number of sets etc). Evert and Navratilova are being disingenuous. Best refutation I've heard were from Murray and Williams. If women really believe in equality then don't hide behind the old arguments. Novak has focused on entertainment value, let's just take his point head on

 

[Ricardo]

^I can recall a time when men's tennis sucked big time. It fluctuates, sometimes the women's game is more interesting

Sucked big time when? it fluctuates but since when did it dip below the level of WTA?

 

[Ricardo]

As I said in my last that it would be my last on the subject, I'll keep my word, even if some replies are begin to be made.

Anyway, Moxie, I 'm writing this to just to say that, no, I do not think that you are being hypocritical. I just disagree with you. Other ones, in this public debate, yes, I think they are being highly hypocritical.

Agreed she wasn't trying to be hypocritical, she just tends to want to have things both ways and also uses exceptions to make her point as if it's the general rule. I've read enough of how feminists think things, and its pretty much the way they process their thoughts.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I will say this, the WTA has Serena and only Serena to fall back on in this debate at this point in time. As in "A lot more people want to watch Serena over X male player," which of course, is true. Serena is more popular than about 95% of the men's tour (I guess you can bring up Sharapova being popular too but we can have that argument when she's actually eligible to play tennis). The flip-side of course, is that Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are more popular than 100% of the women's tour worldwide, and Novak is right up there as well. So as far as what people want to see right now, there can be no denying that men's tour is much more popular (although I honestly suspect its popularity will take a hit when Fedal go because there isn't anyone on the horizon and for as awesome as Novak is, I don't think he can carry the whole tour by himself, marketing wise).

This, coupled with the 5 set format in majors are big arguments for more pay on the men's sides. Of course, the flip-side is majors are only 4 tournaments a year, and in every other tournament, men and women are playing under the same format. And paying men more because the tour is more popular right now is tricky because what if there comes a time where the WTA is blooming and the ATP is struggling (popularity-wise)? Do you change the pay structure accordingly?

I will also point out that there are plenty of terrible arguments in this thread. Off the top of my head the NBA/WNBA analogy is absolutely terrible as the WNBA and women's basketball in general cannot compare to the WTA tour. Not in terms of history, skill, popularity, star power, etc...

With all that said, I reiterate, I don't give a rat's ass about this debate. Do you really care if Serena Williams gets paid a couple of more millions more? Seriously? They are millionaire athletes either way.

 

[brokenshoelace]

As far as the very idea of equality in tennis, that's a more interesting debate to me. I would call myself a feminist in real life. And I am all for equality. But this is tennis. Are women equally good at tennis as men? In absolute terms, this can't be true (as in a good male tennis player will always beat a good female tennis player), so if you look at it that way, then I guess male tennis players should always get paid more.

However, I think we should be looking at this in relative terms (as in for example, Serena Williams is relatively better than say, Berdych). The problem with that however, is that there's still a pretty huge argument for the ATP still producing better quality tennis, even in relative terms, especially for the past decade or so, which in my opinion is undeniable. Hence the gulf in popularity, where the ATP boomed with Fedal and Djokovic...and even Murray to a lesser extent (I think the WTA wishes it had a high profile British multi-slam winning player right now).

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

I honestly think this would negatively impact the popularity of women's tennis. Some matches would be absolutely tedious. It's hard enough watching some men over the course of 5 sets. Plus, I think this would be a logistical headaches, as you mention in your post.

 

[britbox]

As far as the very idea of equality in tennis, that's a more interesting debate to me. I would call myself a feminist in real life. And I am all for equality. But this is tennis. Are women equally good at tennis as men? In absolute terms, this can't be true (as in a good male tennis player will always beat a good female tennis player), so if you look at it that way, then I guess male tennis players should always get paid more.

However, I think we should be looking at this in relative terms (as in for example, Serena Williams is relatively better than say, Berdych). The problem with that however, is that there's still a pretty huge argument for the ATP still producing better quality tennis, even in relative terms, especially for the past decade or so, which in my opinion is undeniable. Hence the gulf in popularity, where the ATP boomed with Fedal and Djokovic...and even Murray to a lesser extent (I think the WTA wishes it had a high profile British multi-slam winning player right now).

Well, there's the sticking point - it doesn't stack up with regards to equality in every day life because they aren't really doing the same job. In real life, there isn't a women v women tour for business and commerce, it's an open field. That would be impractical for tennis.

For me, it's always about commercial viability, not the the number of sets or how long people are on court, or how tough it is... and personally I do enjoy the grand slams and some of the big tournaments being combined events - it adds to the whole aura of the show. So, not too fussed how much the women get paid - they negotiated it via pressure to the powers that be... so , so be it.

However, I think the comments made by Novak and even the Indian Wells director were fine.... they were just expressing their opinions about the state of play right now. The fact it sparked so much outrage to me is more annoying than what the women earn.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Novak's comments were absolutely fine. I personally am completely indifferent to them but in no way did they warrant an apology. The Indian Wells director may have been right in the point he was trying to convey, but the way he went on about it was absolutely off the mark. No other way around it. I hate the PC era as much as the next guy but his wording was awful.

 

[britbox]

Yes, the wording left a lot to be desired, because of obvious connotations

...and you'd think he'd have been more media savvy... he was bound to get ripped to shreds by certain parts of the press.

 

[DarthFed]

The guy deserved to lose his job from a business perspective more than just being politically incorrect with his comments. No good businessman promotes his business by saying 50% of my product is great but this other 50%, they are just terrible. Thank God for the good half! Even if what he said is true it was just an idiotic statement and a black eye for his event.

I can't say I'm surprised there was some backlash over Nole's comments even though I don't think there should have been. It's easy in this day and age for things to be 1. misconstrued and 2. blown way out of proportion.

 

[Mastoor]

Mastoor, I hope you're not going to justify women getting paid less in tennis because they get paid less in every other job they do. That would be part of the problem of what is unfair. Basketball can't compare, and I agree. But what about US soccer. There is not a men's player that we haven't imported from abroad that you can name. However, the women in the US have done well. And it tennis, as Serena pointed out in her very well-considered press conference yesterday, the women's final at the USO sold out before any day of the tournament. Why? Because Serena was going for the CGS. That is box-office. I don't know why it bothers you guys so much that the women get equal pay...it's not your money.

No, but it would make much more sense for women to fight for equality where the most of them are affected and where it does mater and where they are probably equal to or perhaps better than men in the same jobs - real jobs, than to be just happy that there is "at lest that one thing" where they are "equal" - the thing that has absolutely nothing to do with real life - tennis.

 

[Billie]

I really don't care how much the players are paid because I am not paying them. I can only be honest and say that I would prefer most men's matches than any of the women's. I go to Toronto to watch men's tournament every other year, but I went to see women only 1 year. Men's tour attracts more sponsors, more TV viewership, more spectators. So what is wrong of them for thinking that they may be entitled to being paid more? (and Nole didn't think of himself here, but he said ATP should fight for more for them) The same way I don't feel like attacking all ladies tennis players for their thinking that they should be paid equally.

There hasn't been 1 live match that featured ladies from IW and Miami so far, not even IW final on Canadian TV. That tells me something.

But this is the world where sensational things (whether they are true or words being taken out of context or being twisted) rule so no wonder that Nole would be attacked for his opinion, which wasn't offending anybody really. But that is life.

 

[Vince Evert]

It's really very simple. Either the Women Tennis competitors play B05 or the Men B03 in the Grand Slams. The Way that Men's Tennis play the game these days, I would prefer the latter.

 

[Moxie]

I really don't care how much the players are paid because I am not paying them. I can only be honest and say that I would prefer most men's matches than any of the women's. I go to Toronto to watch men's tournament every other year, but I went to see women only 1 year. Men's tour attracts more sponsors, more TV viewership, more spectators. So what is wrong of them for thinking that they may be entitled to being paid more? (and Nole didn't think of himself here, but he said ATP should fight for more for them) The same way I don't feel like attacking all ladies tennis players for their thinking that they should be paid equally.

There hasn't been 1 live match that featured ladies from IW and Miami so far, not even IW final on Canadian TV. That tells me something.

But this is the world where sensational things (whether they are true or words being taken out of context or being twisted) rule so no wonder that Nole would be attacked for his opinion, which wasn't offending anybody really. But that is life.

But the truth is the men DO make more. Their tournaments across the year have bigger purses, overall. It's the Majors, and only 3, I think, of the other shared events that offer equal prize money. I agree with Murray that, where they play the same event, they should get the same money. (@Robert Zimmerman: the BO3/BO5 is not really an argument, given that they don't get paid by the hour, and they all put out same efforts off-court, and frankly have to put out the same expenditures...travel, coaches, training, etc.) So the men already take part in a larger purse. Beyond that, the ones who win more, women and men, make the most.

On US TV, we saw loads of women's and men's matches both live. Including the IW final. Which was a shame for you, because the women's was better.