posted Jul 2, 2007

The time thing is really a side issue.

The point is, men are much, much better at tennis - and athletics. So why are the women getting the same amount of money??

Would you like it if you had a job and were really good at it, but your colleague who was nowhere near as good was paid the same just because she was a woman??
--------------------------
The time thing is not a side issue to many of the posters on here, (but it is to me).

However, by a logical extension of your argument, sportswomen should be paid nothing as their performance as nowhere near good enough to compete with the best (men).

This is not the way to look at it. Sportsmen and Sportswomen get paid because people like to watch them. Playing tennis well gives nobody any material benefit. It's the contest that we want to see. For pure fairness, we should split the tournament in two, let the free market operate, and pay people by what they bring in via sponsorship/gate receipts/viewing figures. This would probably leave the women worse off. Harsh? Well, it's no harsher than the inequality in Men/Women's football.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 2, 2007

I couldn't agree more madthinker.

There is no credible argument against that.

...Or is there?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2007

I don't agree with it. It's a double standard- they are paid the same for doing less. Look at the finals. Venus Williams won after playing 17 games. Federer played 53. Even if he had played the least amount he could have done he's have played 18 games. It's not equal.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2007

CLG1979. Any sportsperson will tell you that the work done is in the training, the preparation and the sacrifices involved. Actually competing (for however many sets) is the good part. Thus actual difference in the work done is negligible.

To make the point clearer, do you think we should we pay sprinters 1/1000th the amount of marathon runners simply because their event is shorter?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2007

I doubt a marathon runner could beat a 100m sprinter in a 100m event, and I doubt a 100m runner could beat a marathon runner in a marathon, so that's a fairly pointless argument...

Just because they both involve running, it does not make them the same. They are totally different disciplines, and require different methods of training, and different states of physical fitness.

Its like saying a tennis player should be able to play cricket at a high level, because they both involve hitting a ball with some form of bat...

In the same way, put a female player in five set matches, and they would struggle with fatigue, put a male player in a three set match, and they would breeze through it...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 9, 2007

It is entirely relevant when your argument appears to be based entirely on the fact that men are on the court longer.

Put women in 5 set matches and they would soon adapt. Put men in 3 set matches and they would soon adapt by playing more intensely. Neither would find it easier, because their opponent would find it easier too. Playing in a tennis match is a competition, not an achievement.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 10, 2007

The quality and talented display by men's final and women's final will speak itself whether it is fair to give equal money to both men and women. Still if some people find the equal enjoyment, equal shots making,equal talented display and equal enjoyment for equal time on the court, then yes female deserve equal money. Otherwise, women do not even know how to volley properly except play power tennis, I mean bang bang powerful tennis and finish the match in less than 1 hour or little over an hour who cannot sell the tickets as much as men's do and cannot attract the tv ratings as men do, how come female want to steal the money from the men's tennis. It is not fair. Female tennis players like Sharapova and Venus said it is not the dollars amount it matters about equality, I want to ask them the question, Do they really think from the bottom of their heart that it is ok to to get equal money for less ticket sales, less tv rating, less sponsors,less talent display and less entertaminent for the viewers? If they still think they want equal amout of money. I don't have anything to say anything except I can say they cannot accept the truth. They are taking advantage of equality word.Women need equality in jobs, politic and many more things. If tennis players take advantage of the rules, it will hurt the real meaning of equality. These tennis ladies who have big mouth need education. They don't even know how to give credit to the opponent. They said I lost because I played bad tennis. I was 40%. I won because I played great tennis. These ladies need education a lot for sure. On the top of that the female players like Ana, Henin admit that they prefer watching men's tennis because they can learn a lot from the men's match than female.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 10, 2007

guys can long on to www.atptennis.com or here's the proof.
July 9, 2007, 11:28AM
Men's Wimbledon Final TV Rating Up


© 2007 The Associated Press

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
Comments Recommend
WIMBLEDON, England — Roger Federer's second Wimbledon final against Rafael Nadal drew a TV audience about 10 percent larger than last year's matchup did.

The coverage of the men's championship Sunday, won by Federer in five sets, drew a 3.2 overnight rating on NBC. That's up from 2.9 in 2006, when Federer beat Nadal in four sets at the All England Club.

The ratings also increased Saturday, when the men's semifinals and Venus Williams' victory in the women's final drew an overnight rating of 2.8 _ a 27 percent rise from 2006.

Overnight ratings measure the largest TV markets in the United States, accounting for about 70 percent of the country.

NBC is owned by General Electric Co.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 27, 2007

Seems I have picked up on this one a little late. I think the suggestion to allow women to play the men was ridiculed by GS2 on the basis that this issue has not been raised with respect to other sports. Well, I think it's about time it was. We hear SO much about equality - well off you go - play the men in every sport head to head. Somehow, I think this could mean the end of women's sports as we know it.

One other thing - who is in charge of this forum? The whole things seems aimed at 2 year olds. So ninnified

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jul 31, 2007

The ratings for NBC are bound to be up for the US audience as Venus Williams is Amercian.

I wonder if the same result would have been achieved if the final were between Henin and Sharapova as many expected?

There was also the 'underdog' factor which would have drawn in a larger audience.

The fact that the mens final was between Federer and Nadal (neither American) and a highly expected clash, may have lead to a degree of apathy with the US viewers and led to them seeking 'alternative' viewing.

On another point, if we are equating competitions such as sprinting and marathon running, why aren't the prize funds for the doubles and mixed doubles equal to singles?

add comment | complain about this comment