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

[Moxie]

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.

This is well-said, Mastoor, and I appreciate it. No one is really interested in whiny multi-millionaires pushing and pulling over a bigger piece of a large pie. However, it doesn't help the overall cause when men go out of their way to downgrade the notion of equal pay, especially where it doesn't affect them, as is the case with Ray Moore and Novak. (And for the record, I have said that Novak's comments were pretty mild, and I know he was goaded into commenting at the presser. He should just have steered clear, imo.)

 

[Billie]

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.

But just put yourself in men's tennis shoes for a moment. If the men's tour has better stats everywhere when the events are separate, why do they have to give up more and give their share to women in the combined tournaments? Do you think women attract more sponsorship and viewers in the combined events? Do you also think that these sponsors fall from the sky for men and not for women? I think top players work very hard in attracting sponsors and more money into their tour. Maybe they should not mix them at all and have slams separate and then it would be easier to see who deserves more. In 2013 Murray was all for women playing best of 5 to justify the equal play and now he changed his mind?

Serena as great as she is basically gave up on the tour after her USO semi final loss. Is that really professional? Well people suffer tough losses but they continue playing and honoring the rest of the tournaments. And I would guess that Americans would show one of their own more than any other player, especially if that player is #1 in the world, it's just not the case in other countries.

But don't think that Canadians don't like women and are discriminating them, heck right after Murray's match they went right on showing women's curling.

 

[Billie]

And just to clarify, I really don't have anything against women tennis players getting the same money in joined tournaments, if they can negotiate better deals for themselves why not? I am just saying that I see a point that men present in this matter. I don't pay them so I really don't have an influence on this anyway.

 

[Moxie]

But just put yourself in men's tennis shoes for a moment. If the men's tour has better stats everywhere when the events are separate, why do they have to give up more and give their share to women in the combined tournaments? Do you think women attract more sponsorship and viewers in the combined events? Do you also think that these sponsors fall from the sky for men and not for women? I think top players work very hard in attracting sponsors and more money into their tour. Maybe they should not mix them at all and have slams separate and then it would be easier to see who deserves more. In 2013 Murray was all for women playing best of 5 to justify the equal play and now he changed his mind?

Serena as great as she is basically gave up on the tour after her USO semi final loss. Is that really professional? Well people suffer tough losses but they continue playing and honoring the rest of the tournaments. And I would guess that Americans would show one of their own more than any other player, especially if that player is #1 in the world, it's just not the case in other countries.

But don't think that Canadians don't like women and are discriminating them, heck right after Murray's match they went right on showing women's curling.

I don't think you read back across the thread or the links provided. Even some of the guys here have agreed that there are other times when the women's tour has been a bigger draw. You can't pro-rate it year-by-year or tournament-by-tournament, based on interest. That would just be impractical. In the combined events you have big stars on both sides that draw the crowds. It's difficult to know who buys their tickets for which preferred stars they want to see. The men's game is in a gold age, and we all agree with that. But the women's game has stars that sell tickets. The balance can change, with time. Since it's not really possible to tell who sells what ticket, and you have a combined event, what's wrong with making the prize money the same?

The mixed events are good for the game, in general. They really generate a lot of interest. (I would hope you would read the historical article I cited above.) It would be churlish and short-sighted to separate them, just to see who draws the biggest crowds. I never said that Canadians are discriminating against women. I only meant that, if you were taking the example of your TV as a proof that men's tennis was preferred, I offered you the option of my TV, which was different.

As to Serena, that's uncharacteristic of you. Serena made a big push last year, and had a really disappointing loss. You're the one that always reminds us that they're human. She needed a break. It's not "unprofessional" what's going on with her. I'd say it is very human. She's 34. She's still got the biggest target on her back, and she's got to get up every day for it. If she had to lick her wounds a bit after losing to Vinci at the USO, I personally feel I can understand.

 

[Billie]

Sure, take a month off, everybody needs to lick their wounds, but to quit completely, for the rest of the year. How is that fair to all the women's fans and to their tour? Why is now her age an excuse? She was good enough to play IPTL or whatever that silliness is called. You fall down and you get up and honor your obligations. And you again don't realize that USA is not the whole world. There are countries that really don't care about Serena that much. Is that so hard to grasp? Even some women's tennis players admit that they prefer men's tennis than women's (Ana for example).

I guess we'll never agree about this so I'll leave it at this. I personally prefer men's tennis and if I can have an option to watch a men's or women's match I will always opt for men's. So it would be hypocritical of me to claim otherwise. Even WTA sections on many boards are smaller and don't generate nearly as many posts as ATP. Just the reality.

 

[Moxie]

I was just a little surprised because you're usually "generous" to players and their human foibles. But that's actually far off the mark of what women and men getting paid. I told you that men actually do get paid more. So what is the question, anymore? I told you that there is equal pay only in a few tournaments. If Novak is so distressed about that, that is very whiny. If the undercard guys wanted to mount a conversation about it, I would say at least that would be more interesting. They won't win the argument, and I'd cite Murray's comments, the slightly impolitic Stakhofsky example notwithstanding.

At this point in time I also prefer men's tennis, so I won't be hypocritical, either. In the last 3-4 years, I told friends of mine that, if they could only watch one sport, they should watch men's tennis. (OK, slightly less interesting now with the Novak domination, but still a good field, and youngsters coming up.) But there are plenty of women that have come up in the last few years that I care about more than some of the men. There is no sport that has been as good to women as tennis. But there have been few sports that women have been good for as tennis. It goes both ways.

 

[Billie]

And we come to the issue of equality. Where warranted, I am all for it. Where women are bigger draw they should be paid more. It should not be really men vs women because they don't play each other in any tournament. It's just which tour is more successful commercially than other. If the tournaments in the USA are more successful for women, due to Serena's popularity, then they should be paid more for those.

Nole is not distressed about it, he was asked a question about it. And he answered in a logical and polite manner, I thought, without any insults. Others however started freaking out and yelling "injustice" and twisted his words. It's best to not have an opinion at all and play dumb and not touch any subject otherwise we risk an outrage of public scrutiny. Then why asking questions or having these boards for that matter at all. Tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern world, another sad thing.

 

[Moxie]

And we come to the issue of equality. Where warranted, I am all for it. Where women are bigger draw they should be paid more. It should not be really men vs women because they don't play each other in any tournament. It's just which tour is more successful commercially than other. If the tournaments in the USA are more successful for women, due to Serena's popularity, then they should be paid more for those.

Nole is not distressed about it, he was asked a question about it. And he answered in a logical and polite manner, I thought, without any insults. Others however started freaking out and yelling "injustice" and twisted his words. It's best to not have an opinion at all and play dumb and not touch any subject otherwise we risk an outrage of public scrutiny. Then why asking questions or having these boards for that matter at all. Tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern world, another sad thing.

I still think you've missed the point. It's not about Serena in the US. It's more historical than that. I'm with BB on this: it's about the market, and there is a big market for some women in tennis, Serena leading the field. If you can sell tickets and advertising, you get a piece of the pie. Sharapova is a bit in the wilderness right now, but you have been a fan of hers and she is (or was) box-office.

As to Novak, his comments about equal pay were off-the-cuff, probably ill-advised, bad PR. But you have to admit, his talking about women's hormones was weird. Where was he going with that? That's where he went off the rails, tbh.

 

[calitennis127]

As a spectator, I never cared much for the wta tour or women's tennis. In fact, since at Slams I generally only get to see the big show courts I find women's tennis a bit annoying. I'd rather watch a second tier men's match than Williams blasting some random wta player off the court.

That being said, putting this stuff in practice is impossible. These are hugely subjective factors that vary over the years. Equal pay is just easier and to be honest more fair.

Equal pay for equal work and equal output is fair. Equal pay for unequal work and unequal output is not fair. Changing the system is not impossible. It just requires that people acquire some brains.

 

[calitennis127]

Why don't we leave off the word "feminist" and substitute "women," as that is what you're saying. That men have achieved more...what?...in history? While they control the narrative? Sure. Women haven't actually done badly, since we have been treated as "property" across much of history, and convenient bargaining tools for advantageous marriages. Since we haven't even been always the ones educated, including now. Given the handicapping, we've done ok.

Men invented tennis, playing to their strengths, as they have with most sports. There are sports where women excel over men, but they are not the most popular. You say people prefer matches at a higher level, and I gave you an example of one in which the women's was more compelling, which you ignored.

If your measure is what the commercial world thinks they're worth, here is a list of the top 10 earners in tennis: http://www.abcnewspoint.com/top-10-richest-tennis-players-in-the-world/ 5 men, 5 women.

LOL.....right, Kournikova being on the Top 10 makes a terrific case for modern feminism. There is one and only one reason she is in the Top 10: because she is hot. For Sharapova the reasons are similar, although she is more accomplished than Kournikova and noticeably less attractive. Serena and Venus are on that list much more because of their race than their gender. In the world of tennis, black people are novel. Serena and Venus have been excellent players and a culture shock for tennis, as well as feel-good stories for contemporary white leftists.

The fact that women have been treated differently than men in history, as a sort of second class in the minds of feminists, only reinforces the point that they do not have the same capabilities and strengths as men. They could not and still cannot do anything to stop male "oppression", if you wish to call it that. Men just happen to be so consumed by sports in the modern world that they really do not care about asserting themselves in traditional areas like military and political life as much. This has created a vacuum for feminist freaks and an assortment of other wackjobs to rise to prominence they would otherwise never have attained.

As for ratings and attention, the average male tennis match draws far more viewers than the average women's match. Serena needs to go for the year Grand Slam for the ratings to even come close.

 

[calitennis127]

Male athletes attract more spectators in the other sports that you mention. Women barely play them, though basketball is gaining traction. But for the very reason you say that only tennis draws this kind of controversy is one of the reasons that women deserve equal pay. As women, we only see ourselves as dominating stars in so many sports, and tennis is the top among them. (Figure skating, basketball, golf and running are our other best ones.)

Speaking of figure skating, I think it is mighty sexist that men get paid very little attention and that the likes of Michelle Kwan are seen as the prototypes. That is really unfair. It makes me want to cry. I also think it is unfair that female supermodels get paid the most. When will people speak up against this injustice? Dammit......

 

[Moxie]

Equal pay for equal work and equal output is fair. Equal pay for unequal work and unequal output is not fair. Changing the system is not impossible. It just requires that people acquire some brains.

I don't think the system needs to be changed. Or beyond the odd tweak. Women should be paid the same at all coed events, which would only adjust Madrid, Rome, and...is Miami the other one? Other than that, as I mentioned before, the men do get more. And if Djokovic is actually being generous, and not self-interested, then it's up to the ATP to pay more at the lower rounds, less at the top, and thereby equalize the pay for the men, a bit more, since they're such a big draw.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't think the system needs to be changed. Or beyond the odd tweak. Women should be paid the same at all coed events, which would only adjust Madrid, Rome, and...is Miami the other one? Other than that, as I mentioned before, the men do get more. And if Djokovic is actually being generous, and not self-interested, then it's up to the ATP to pay more at the lower rounds, less at the top, and thereby equalize the pay for the men, a bit more, since they're such a big draw.

It is not logical for women to be paid equally at any event. They do not produce the same quality of tennis. But we do not live in a logical world. Fortunately the silly ideas of feminism will run their course and pass in due time, just as countless others have in history. A couple hot blondes or brunettes with nice legs coupled with a pair of black sisters do not make the women's game equal to the men's game in any way except size of viewing audiences in a tiny number of matches.

As for your argument that Djokovic should want lower round matches to be better compensated, you are trying to be clever but your point has nothing to do with the equal pay debate for the sexes. When Djokovic wins a Slam, he doesn't outearn the early-round losers any more than Serena does when she wins a slam on the women's side.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not going to run back over the arguments of this thread because you didn't read it, but most agree that women deserve equal pay at coed events for the reasons you can go back and read. That's not the debate. And as has been made clear, women don't make more than the men, across the year, so you should be happy about that.

Forgive me for trying to be "clever," (god forbid my feeble little female brain should show you up on a point that you fail to comprehend,) but the best understanding of Djokovic's argument, that men deserve to be paid more, (if he's not to be read as a bit of a brat, at his pay-level, for complaining about it,) is that men's tennis should spread the wealth more equally, i.e., pay more at the lower rounds and less at the higher. Essentially, you don't understand how the system works. ATP and WTA are separate, and they don't govern the Majors. If Djokovic and the men have a qualm, it's mainly within their own system. But you can't create more money than there is. Either Djokovic wants more for himself, which would take it off the backs of the lower ranks, or he wants it more equally distributed. He may have been initially suggesting that they take it from the women's pot, but he walked that back, big time. And in any case, there are very few options for men to take it out of the women's kitty. They take from their own.

 

[Ricardo]

I'm not going to run back over the arguments of this thread because you didn't read it, but most agree that women deserve equal pay at coed events for the reasons you can go back and read. That's not the debate. And as has been made clear, women don't make more than the men, across the year, so you should be happy about that.

Forgive me for trying to be "clever," (god forbid my feeble little female brain should show you up on a point that you fail to comprehend,) but the best understanding of Djokovic's argument, that men deserve to be paid more, (if he's not to be read as a bit of a brat, at his pay-level, for complaining about it,) is that men's tennis should spread the wealth more equally, i.e., pay more at the lower rounds and less at the higher. Essentially, you don't understand how the system works. ATP and WTA are separate, and they don't govern the Majors. If Djokovic and the men have a qualm, it's mainly within their own system. But you can't create more money than there is. Either Djokovic wants more for himself, which would take it off the backs of the lower ranks, or he wants it more equally distributed. He may have been initially suggesting that they take it from the women's pot, but he walked that back, big time. And in any case, there are very few options for men to take it out of the women's kitty. They take from their own.

lets look at it another way, if these female players were to play naked they'd have more spectators than men (whether or not they do the same) that is not even debatable. So should we base everything on that it all depends on how many seats they fill? in fact the men still fill more seats "in general", not petty number of matches that you pick out as 'examples' which are simply exceptions.

in any case, there has never been a sport where a group playing lower level would have the same prize money as those in higher level.... that is never the case but is the case now through utterly shameless social engineering - bad manipulation. why should any event pay both the same when its well known the men have more market share IN GENERAL? from your feminist's perspective, it's supposed to be 'equal' this and that, but it's simply BS as nothing is really equal. why should different groups being paid less (like seniors and juniors) according to your 'equality' logic? they don't fill same seats as men? of course not, but neither does WTA.

Then again given the poor state of social justice which nobody cares, gender equality must top the agenda so anything goes.

 

[Ricardo]

Speaking of figure skating, I think it is mighty sexist that men get paid very little attention and that the likes of Michelle Kwan are seen as the prototypes. That is really unfair. It makes me want to cry. I also think it is unfair that female supermodels get paid the most. When will people speak up against this injustice? Dammit......

men are actually better skaters but you know women have the advantage for granted, it's about the sexiness of their bodies..... however do expect a feminist to come up with lame and untrue explanations.

 

[Moxie]

men are actually better skaters but you know women have the advantage for granted, it's about the sexiness of their bodies..... however do expect a feminist to come up with lame and untrue explanations.

Stunning reasoning, with excellent examples. How can I argue with such erudition, coming, as it does from the *burp* man-cave?

 

[Ricardo]

Stunning reasoning, with excellent examples. How can I argue with such erudition, coming, as it does from the *burp* man-cave?

come on Moxie, surely you can....being the feminist you are you can always come up with some kind of illogical and delusional arguments speaking of cave-man, didn't men invent everything you use, cars you drive, computers you use, airplanes you fly in, or even the internet so you can argue your feminist views around here.......i was trying to think of something useful feminists ever invented, found none.... must be that the men didn't allow them to, same old don't you think?

fair to say we would all be cave-men and cave-women if we counted on the feminists to do all the 'thinking' for us no?

 

[Moxie]

I said "man-cave," not cave man. I think you just responded Freudianly. I know the word "feminist" is hard to wrap your mouth around, but we're also colloquially referred to as "women."

You make a sweeping and unfounded statement, which I criticize, and you have the brass ones to challenge me to provide some women inventors, rather than actually defend your baseless claim. Ok, then, I'll play, and you can reciprocate with an explanation (with examples) of how men are better skaters, because, for women, it's only about their "sexy bodies."

Radiation, polonium and radium, radioactivity, (Marie Curie - first person ever to win 2 Nobels)
Circular saw
Dishwasher
Electric hot water heater
Elevated railway
Kevlar
Globes
Liquid Paper
Life Raft
The concept of medical people washing their hands (has saved millions of lives)
Windshield wiper
Trans-Pacific solo flight
Erotic poetry
Fire,

to name a few.

And I doubt every broad strokes invention that you mention, especially from the 20th-21st C. was invented without female participation. Computers? The internet? Airplanes? (There's a whole WWII thing that is apparently lost on you.)

 

[Ricardo]

I said "man-cave," not cave man. I think you just responded Freudianly. I know the word "feminist" is hard to wrap your mouth around, but we're also colloquially referred to as "women."

You make a sweeping and unfounded statement, which I criticize, and you have the brass ones to challenge me to provide some women inventors, rather than actually defend your baseless claim. Ok, then, I'll play, and you can reciprocate with an explanation (with examples) of how men are better skaters, because, for women, it's only about their "sexy bodies."

Radiation, polonium and radium, radioactivity, (Marie Curie - first person ever to win 2 Nobels)
Circular saw
Dishwasher
Electric hot water heater
Elevated railway
Kevlar
Globes
Liquid Paper
Life Raft
The concept of medical people washing their hands (has saved millions of lives)
Windshield wiper
Trans-Pacific solo flight
Erotic poetry
Fire,

to name a few.

And I doubt every broad strokes invention that you mention, especially from the 20th-21st C. was invented without female participation. Computers? The internet? Airplanes? (There's a whole WWII thing that is apparently lost on you.)

uh huh, so you did some homework googling around...... one of the search engines which are invented by whom? while i don't have the time check each one through, just thought of globes and guess what.. inventor was shown to be Martin Behaim, a German. More importantly, looking by numbers the men have VASTLY outnumbered women in all important inventions. Your 'to name a few' is a bit cheap here, there isn't a whole lot more you can find (things that matter). In fact it's funny you are desperate enough to name 'fire' as 'invention' by women, oh how is that an 'invention'? typical of your 'straw woman' argument TBH

just cut the crap, take away mens inventions and you have just about nothing to live on - take away women's and we still have plenty. Marie Currie was a great scientist, so was her husband and she actually based her work on someone else's findings about X-ray, as a start. So your "
Radiation, polonium and radium, radioactivity" grossly exaggerated her scope of work, but i am not surprised, it's just the way you argue about things, the feminist way. In fact one would not be wrong to say you 'misrepresented' it.

I actually thought of Currie and expected you to bring her in, since there are not many other (if any) notable scientists of that magnitude in women. It also proves that if a woman was good enough her inventions would be recognised, so what does it mean that overall they contributed so little of the important innovations in general? look at facts and numbers Moxie.

Its the same in tennis really, you say WTA carried ATP..... well for how long? tennis history goes back more than 100 years, what's the length of time that women's tennis topped men's? I thought ATP carried WTA for a lot longer yet they have equal prize money all because you want 'gender equality'.... that is simply unjust social manipulation. No wonder Djoker thinks its unfair, it just is based on facts - but you don't recognise facts do you?

as far as skating goes, you know the only way to compare is be objective about the criteria. You can be objective about like, who makes more turns, who makes the moves to higher technical standard... you can look up USFS for all the technicalities. Where the women have advantage is the artistic part, which is subjective. Nobody can point out what makes a skater's move artistically superior, and there is no way you can say the sexy women's body has nothing to do with it (be my guest if you like lying to yourself).

In short, the technical moves are all we have to objectively score who skates better - artistically it's up to anyone. oh btw men are not less artistic actually, there have been a lot more great male artists than women

there must be a reason when people say sex sells, it's mostly womens' bodies, not men's, like male models have never done as well as female counterparts, or you don't think so again? but i think it's fair, women's bodies are sexier for sure so got no problems that female models make a heap more money than males, absolutely NO PROBLEM