Wimbledon ditches tradition: Women to get paid same as men
mca47
Posts: 13,297
Ok, I'm all for equal rights but this is bullshit.
First of all the women in tennis literally play 3/5 of what men do. If this was any other job, you would NOT get paid the same. Women tennis players, for those that aren't familiar with tennis, play three sets whereas men play 5.
If women want to play 5 then I'm all for it, but until then I think it's crap!
Granted, women's tennis is much more appealing to watch (damn those hot Russian chicks!
) but it's still crap!
If I went to work tomorrow and they told me I had to work 8 hours and the women had to only work 5 and we got the same pay...I'd be one pissed off dude.
First of all the women in tennis literally play 3/5 of what men do. If this was any other job, you would NOT get paid the same. Women tennis players, for those that aren't familiar with tennis, play three sets whereas men play 5.
If women want to play 5 then I'm all for it, but until then I think it's crap!
Granted, women's tennis is much more appealing to watch (damn those hot Russian chicks!
) but it's still crap!If I went to work tomorrow and they told me I had to work 8 hours and the women had to only work 5 and we got the same pay...I'd be one pissed off dude.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
who wants to watch federer win every frickin tournament every week? its too predictable. thats probably why more people don't watch the men's game.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the men's game is boring because there is not as much "skill" in the game anymore...wind up, smack the ball as hard as you can...that's not that much fun...
if the women generate the revenue then they should be paid for it.
from my window to yours
I agree that women's tennis is awesome to watch!
But, based on that "Title 9" wouldn't exist in High School sports. It is based on the idea that it shouldn't be based on what brings in revenue but what is fair and equal...:rolleyes:
Sooooo, if men's football brings in $100,000/year they should get as much funding as the womens volleyball team which brings in $24/year...most of which goes to academics.
Does it come down to the sexiness of the sport?
But whenever any championship man plays an equal women in tennis he almost always wins. They really can't even compete. It's pretty much the case in any professional sport. Outside of tennis any anything else they can look "hot" in, they bring in significantly less money and aren't as good at the sport...but want the same money...
Most antizionists are antisemites
I think you should let me in on your morning briefings.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Well, actually women's tennis have much lower ratings and profits than men's tennis. The WTA is in constant trouble with its sponsors due to low ratings and low attendance. Sharapova makes tons of cash but it does not translate into the whole Tour. Women's matches are packed only when the tournament includes women and men, like the Slam Events or Key Biscayne. Men's tennis is much more appealing to the public, especially 'cause in the ATP tour you have good matches since the first round, whereas at the WTA tour good matches only happen in the final rounds. Furthermore, thousands of people love to see Federer win week after week, he always does something even more outstanding and wonderful. And I usually root Roddick and Nalbandian, but I definitely love to watch him play.
About women getting paid the same,even though I'm a woman I have mixed feelings...I'm all for gender equality, but in this case women are not making the same effort as men. However, if women only play 2 or 3 sets it is not their fault. That's the WTA rules. During the 90's, when the WTA masters was played at the MSG, the finals had to be played up to 5 sets. I don't know why the changed it.
so we should determine things based on efforts, not actual work product? so in schools every kid that does all the assignments should get an A even if they get all the answers wrong becos they worked just as hard (if not ahrder) than the kid who actually got all the answers right? if you're trying REALLY hard at work you're just as entitled to a promotion or a raise as the person who corrected all your mistakes becos you can't perform nearly as well but you really TRIED?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Are you understanding that Tennis is a sport, i.e. physical activity? Men and women were built differently. Women are not, by makeup, as strong or as fast as men. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here. Learning has nothing to do w/ physical activity.
but they still have to do with measuring and awarding effort instead of results. the men apparently bring in more money and advertising and play longer sets. anywhere else this would mean greater pay. i dont see why tennis is different just becos women are weaker.
This is correct, but women are playing against women, so if the number of sets to be played would be increased it would be fair. Women could easily play longer matches, it is just a matter of training. Currently women are training to endure a maximum of 3 sets, they could train to endure a 5 set match. However I would find it pointless unless the WTA becomes much more competitive, who would like to see Sharapova beating Ashley Hackerload 6-1/6-1/6-0? In many sports women compete under the same conditions as man (athletism, swimming, soccer come to mind right now)
Just to clear this out, I'm a former junior tennis player, but I'm fully aware of why men's tennis is much more appealing and why there is controversy everytime a tournament decides to raise women's prizes.
Everybody on the earth was built differently from everyone else. Should we start handicapping the men's tournament by how tall, strong or fast the person is?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Just because they may not be a physically good at it doesn't mean they can't play for as long. Women in other sports play just as long as men, women run marthons, triathalons, etc.
They have the capability to play as long as men.
Dude...relax. It's not your money they're spending. It's theirs.
The men still bring in more money and have a much larger following.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://popsport.blogspot.com
Well this is the topic I was getting at. I don't know who brings in more money or has a larger following, but I have a sense that the women have caught the men. Right now, Federer needs a Conners to his McEnroe. I feel like you see more women on commercials (which tends to reflect on popularity).
But I have no quantifiable evidence.
As I said in my previous post, men have a much larger audience than women. The WTA tour is always in trouble with finding sponsors, because very few tournaments have massive attendance. See in tennis there are three or four kinds of tournament. The bigger the prize, the larger the relevance of the tournament. So unless you have a tournament where Sharapova, Henin, Clijsters, Hingis, Vaidisova or the Williams sisters are playing, chances are the tournament will be half empty the whole week. In general, men's tennis is much more exciting. Yes, Federer wins (almost) all the finals, but all men's matches are tight, fought till the end and exciting. On the contrary, women's tennis gets interesting only in the quarterfinals (only 8 remain).
I don't have data or figures with me, but I follow both tours very closely, and it is an old issue. Last female masters tournament was even in jeopardy. WTA has to change sponsors every two or three years, whereas the ATP tour has been sponsored by Mercedes Benz for a decade and they just renewed ir for another one. The problem with WTA tournaments low attendance has only slighlty decreased with Sharapova (and people go to ser her for her look, although she's an outstanding player who works very very hard).
Maybe if you're a casual tennis fan you get the feeling that female tennis is more popular cause Sharapova gets all the headlines, but if you watch any gran slam for the whole two weeks, you'll se that most of the female matches are half-empty at best, except for the semis and the finals, which are usuallly packed.
About the relevant topic. When tennis tournaments begun (in the late 1900's) women in general were 2nd class citizens. As things changed for the better, well tennis didn't in terms of sets that and we kept playing 2 out of 3. So women nowadays are not in physical shape to play 5 sets, but they could train to do so, after all they'd be competing against women (obviously). So, even if I am a female and I'm the first to acknowledge the relevance of Billie Jean King for bringing more equality towards tennis, I'm still not convinced that it's entirely fair that women earn the sames prizes as men. Men have to train harder, play longer hours and much more disputed matches. In general when a woman gets to a Gran Slam finals she's played in average 9hrs of tennis (6 matches at 1.5 hours each), while a men has played 15 (6 matches at 2.5 hours).
So, that my 2cts...
(And yes, I'm a huge tennis fan
then women and men should be paid same rate for amount of sets they do.
very good point, this time i agree with you
Are you being serious?
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?