Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 137 comments are related to the topic:
Equal Prize Money
Equal Prize Money
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 137
|
By:
Eh? Isner v Mahut was awesome!?
|
|
By:
the novelty wore off after about 20-20
|
|
By:
Awesome?
 The 5 set was absolute dross, time to switch off the tennis and put on neighbours for you |
|
By:
I hate Nadal but i'd rather watch him in a 3-0 thrashing in the early rounds of RG than two average ATP players slugging it out in a 5 setter of average quality
|
|
By:
I bet you love watching Barcelona winning 6-0 as well.
Would you rather watch Spurs v Liverpool and Man City at home to Wolves? Obviously Man City are better than Spurs and Liverpool so I assume you want to watch Man City? Do you understand the appeal of sport is COMPETITION? |
|
By:
I do actually, Barcelona play the best football in the world. Ever wondered why they are on Saturday/Sunday evenings every week and don't play when the lower down teams do typically?
Spurs Liverpool would be like watching Tsonga Berdych compared to Djok-Lopez, so the 1st. Djok - Lopez or some non league football? Djok-Lopez obviously |
|
By:
Wolves would be more like Donald Young I think
|
|
By:
'Do you understand the appeal of sport is COMPETITION?'
Part of it is, absolute quality is a bigger appeal |
|
By:
I would rather watch this Murray match now than either of the 2 already been on
|
|
By:
is this like Arsenal vs Spurs or something on now
|
|
By:
Tennis and sport in general is effectively the entertainment business. Therefore pay shouldn't be decided on the amount of time spent on a court but on what people are prepared to pay for the product. Therefore I've no issue with women getting equal pay for best of 3 sets rather than best of 5.
However, for women to deserve equal pay they clearly should attract the same amount of spectators/viewers etc. If the womens and mens tournaments were held separately the courts would be empty for so many of the women's matches. The men's tournament would continue to get full houses. You've only got to compare what tickets are going for on viagogo for the men's semi's and final compared to women's semi's and final to see where the demand is. Interestingly i also noticed that the same seats bought through official channels cost more on men's quarter finals day than they do on women's quarter finals day which shows that even Wimbledon itself is well aware that men's tennis is much more popular. Let's face it, equal pay for mae and female players is a total nonsense but in the days of political correctness gone mad it's unlikely to change. |
|
By:
"I do actually, Barcelona play the best football in the world. Ever wondered why they are on Saturday/Sunday evenings every week and don't play when the lower down teams do typically?"
Don't be silly. If Barcelona played long ball and game 4th in La Liga they would still be on primetime due to their global fanbase. |
|
By:
How do you think they built such a global fanbase and continue to maintain it
 |
|
By:
Dunno. Sending out lots of emails and leaflets in the newspapers?
|
|
By:
Perhaps Stoke should do that and watch their fanbase explode
|
|
By:
Just out of interest, do people think women's money should be decreased, or men's increased
 |
|
By:
'even though it was womens semi final day, all the talk and focus today was on the mens semis and andy murray tomorrow' (Inverdale, 2012)
 |
|
By:
Surely the real question here is should womens tennis and womens sport in general even exist? Why is a woman earning millions to run 100M 3/4 of a second slower than the 100th best man?? Why is a woman tennis player earning millions to play tennis infinately worse than the 1000th best man?? Its purely because she is a woman and they are actually telling us its a handicap
Also the levels of fitness of a Matt Le Tissier or even a Federer never mind a Phil Taylor surely aren't beyond a woman. Why arent we segregating on fat or short or even a white 100M where they earn the same as their quicker black rivals?? |
|
By:
i like watch women competing , not only because of proverbial tits
but the softness ,delicacy,subtlety of women its quite nice to watch,totally different proposition than watching men t hats why women sport exist and doing quite well |
|
By:
aaronh
Just out of interest, do people think women's money should be decreased, or men's increased they want to shift money from women to men within same lot question is for me,as nobody want o watch simon and other mugs maybe better to divide money between entertainers and dull mofos,as i am concerned right know its EQUAL maybe in the future simon will have to fight for his equality over nadal sharapova fedex or raonic like a woman,no |
|
By:
|
|
By:
When I hear this argument it's always people saying the women should play best of 5 if they want the same cash. At the slams though the men playing 5 sets is the main contributor to making their games less interesting and it always seems like the women are getting more TV coverage in the early rounds, because as least if it is one sided it'll be over quick.
You'd have to be the biggest Federer fan ever to really want to watch a procession against Ramos and similar matches involving Djokovic. Best of 3 should be fine until maybe round 4 then, best of 5 sets therein. Yes, you'd get some different winners, but why does that matter? By that token you might as well play best of 7 to give the favourite even more chance to progress. It's already made easy enough for the big guns to progress with the 32 seeds system. The fact that the men have to play best of 5 even in the final qualifying round when hardly anyone is watching is ridiculous and no tie break decider in any of the 3 qualifying rounds. The Roddick v Federer final 3 years ago was boring, long duration doesn't necessary mean good, it needed a final set breaker separately! I enjoy watching the masters events more than the slams I think, to watch a mens best of five you can be devoting half a day to it. I wouldn't mind having 5 sets back for a few of the masters finals like Miami, Indian Wells and London, if the ATP trimmed down the slams to best of 3 for the first few rounds you could do this, would give better value for those buying final tickets. Remember the women aren't getting equal cash all year, it's only for the four main events! |
|
By:
I think they do actually get the same for WTA events that are at the same venues as the ATP masters events, but generally you can see the top women are making a lot less still
|
|
By:
good point about those 3 setters i like masters too
and what about doubles best of five  totally ridiculous, macca made good point today that top players would like to play some doubles but this format its just off putting |
|
By:
I don't see the top players going far in doubles or even playing to begin with at the other majors. All except Wimbledon are best of 3 with final set tiebreak in doubles.
|
|
By:
So best of 5, no tie break is hardly to blame for missing top players in the doubles draw.
|
|
By:
i think actually wimbledon doubles would be most popular for top players of all slams regarded as a competitive training session of serving volleying etc, due to nature of grass event where season is very short and grass practice is needed for players. playing on grass is probably most pleasurable as its soft nice must feel relaxing if u have no pressure to win, just hit some serves play some voleys on the net without much running
nice only if matches would be short i think |
|
By:
Why not make the matches longer in the final when there is only 1 match for spectators to watch and the players dont have to save their energy for the next match? Best of 5 womens and best of 7 mens with tie break in final set
|
|
By:
yeah maybe ;[p. This year it could've been slightly more popular to get some olympic doubles training in, but in other years I still don't see a lot of top20 players signing up for doubles at Wimbledon. Even if it's best of 3.
Aston....are you kidding me? Best of 7 for matches that are likely to have at least one of Nadal or Djokovic? Wimbledon is not allowed to play long past 11pm. |
|
By:
best of 5 doubles is ridiculous anyway, if they have to then it should be no advantage
|
|
By:
best of 7? ffs, Djoko-Nadal could be on court for 8 hours
|
|
By:
murray playing with jamie... tsonga and monfils... ehh daydreaming
i think maybe nadal or djok wouldnt play but much more players from around 30 |
|
By:
Yep, women deserve the same prize money as men and i'm sure all the fans watching today agree they are getting good value for their money
|
|
By:
  |
|
By:
Wonder how much those poor saps paid to watch this utter pile of used tampons....
|
|
By:
120 i think
i reckon my 110 yesterday was better value for money |
|
By:
they have jonny marray to look forward to at least
|
|
By:
they won't give a damn about him
the centre court crowd is simply a disgrace |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
 |