Is there anyone other than these idiots who thinks WTA players getting paid the same is fair?

lol @ you denying the sister's popularity

This is part of the women emancipation thing. Do you really need to get on this one? lol I'll leave it how it is.

The big ATP players have massive contracts that for some are the main income. The 2nd tier players like Tsonga, Berdych probably also making a few bucks on racquet sponsor, apparel, watch etc. The ATP players that barely make the top 20 or are not good enough for sponsorship usually have their success at ATP 250 or Challenger level where the prize money is way better (double?) than the womens equivalent, WTA International and ITf's. So it's not that bad i guess.

I just don't like them doing segments about women's equality without any reference to the fact that some people think it's absurd

As for the sisters popularity. No. Venus Williams doesn't have more than 3 fans. And that's her father, her mother and her sister.

it was hard to take you seriously beforehand but now I just know you are clueless

sexist as well as racist it appears

the job entertain,male or female they are doong the same thing

No. It's just a fact the Williams sisters aren't well liked

the job is to entertain. we dont giva a phuk about who win it.

i understand when nobody likes them

Wimbledon charge less to watch women's semis than men's. Which pretty much ends the argument for me.

I'm not even a fan of either of them but respect that they are greats

why aren't they well liked?

I imagine you'll bring up the US Open matches vs Stosur and Clijsters even though they are way past that era

i think its because they were winning all those players and they were all white.

Jul 4, 2013 -- 6:41PM, TheMadness wrote:

No. It's just a fact the Williams sisters aren't well liked

It's a fact that you don't like them.

It's also a fact that they were the centerpiece of womens tennis becoming majorly popular in the late 90s

I don't know why they aren't well liked. Personally I find Venus sanctimonious, but Serena quite amusing.

U.S. OPEN WOMEN’S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED SINCE 1995:

1. 2001, Venus Williams d. Serena Williams, 6.8

2. 1999, Serena Williams d. Martina Hingis, 6.3

3. 1995, Steffi Graf d. Monica Seles, 5.2

Jul 4, 2013 -- 6:44PM, annibal wrote:

i think its because they were winning all those players and they were all white.

dont lie this is the truth

Probably got a bit of extra publicity for being the first time sisters played each other in a Grand Slam final and them being America.

but noone liked them, so why would they care

well deserved publicity,anyway. who do like to see any of them losing matches? evrybody i guess

do you know which US Open final got better viewing figures last year in America

was it the tough and strong men who played a 5 setter or the match between the player isn't liked and Azarenka

Intrigue. Stick Ian Brady on the court with Charles Manson and you'll get 50 million viewers. Freak shows do. Like Billie Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs. A match she still thinks she actually won

Jul 4, 2013 -- 6:44PM, annibal wrote:

i think its because they were winning all those players and they were all white.

TheMadness is upset that strong black women are all up in his white elitist sport

oh and btw


same statistics in America

U.S. OPEN MEN’S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED SINCE 1995:

1. 1999, Andre Agassi d. Todd Martin, 6.3

2. 2002, Pete Sampras d. Andre Agassi, 6.2

3. 1996, Pete Sampras d. Michael Chang, 6.1

predictable aaronh

crazy how these unliked sisters can outrank the 2 best american players of the 90s/early 00s

people want to see them lose.

Yeah but I bet most Americans were supporting Hingis in that one final

Lets please stop the 5 sets thing, that would actually create more inequality as WTA would lose viewers.  Equal prize money is clearly a farce, anyone suggesting it's justified is an idiot

only at Indian Wells

a race battle is more entertaining than a simple battle

do either of you go to the cinema to watch films

do you look at the two films

film 1 is 90 mins
film 2 is 150 mins

"I'm not going to pay more for film 1 because it is shorter"

Jul 4, 2013 -- 6:55PM, TheMadness wrote:

Yeah but I bet most Americans were supporting Hingis in that one final

you are just making yourself looking stupid by carrying on this whole Williams unpopularity thing but do carry on

Give me some global viewing figures rather than Americans watching Americans play each other.

"do you look at the two films

film 1 is 90 mins
film 2 is 150 mins

"I'm not going to pay more for film 1 because it is shorter"

If film 1 took a year to make and film 2 took 3 years I bet film 2 paid its stars more

Jul 4, 2013 -- 6:57PM, TheMadness wrote:

Give me some global viewing figures rather than Americans watching Americans play each other.

French Open 2011, womens final got more viewings globally

Jul 4, 2013 -- 6:57PM, TheMadness wrote:

Give me some global viewing figures rather than Americans watching Americans play each other.

but what's the difference if it's american vs american?

it's not like i'm saying swiss vs australian mens final was outrated by american vs american in the womens is it

Because I don't think the Williams sisters are popular on a global scale. And most of the people who watch their matches invariably support whoever they're playing.

And regardless of all this, mens tennis in general will still rate higher with audiences the world over and be the driving force behind ticket sales

come on we cant still puting whomens behind in the world of job's. its not ectic at all.

It's clear from this thread that women can't even type better than men

Sorry, I'm presuming annibal is a woman. Like aaronh clearly is

o.k i'm idiot. i thiuk it's fair equal prize money. dont give a phuk what you think.

Jul 4, 2013 -- 6:58PM, TheMadness wrote:

"do you look at the two filmsfilm 1 is 90 minsfilm 2 is 150 mins"I'm not going to pay more for film 1 because it is shorter"If film 1 took a year to make and film 2 took 3 years I bet film 2 paid its stars more

my point was, length isn't a determinant of entertainment value

Equality is rarely fair. Only before the eyes of the law

There is one reason and one reason only way men should get paid more. They are better so deserve to earn more.

That's true but the men play a higher standard for longer. It's the difference between buying a DVD boxset with extras and a single DVD of whatever Eddie Murphy's latest is at the same price.

Well i think WTA should play 5 set matches. And even if they did they should earn less. So i agree.

my point was, length isn't a determinant of entertainment value

That's what they tell you

Walked into that one

heaven forbid people don't want to watch tedious Murray-Djokovic finals all the time if that's what we have to look forward to based on the last few ATP will be back to mug era shortly

I don't see a problem with equal pay but they should work for it and play best of 5 the same, most womens matches would be over in 3 sets anyway such is the disparity in player ability.

wta five sets matches: 5% ding dong classics, 95% forks in eyes mugfest misery.

Patb • July 4, 2013 5:50 PM BST
the clever thing to do is change the argument from the negativity concerning wanting more money to the more positive message of promoting equal conditions. If the ATP said that they promoted equality at all levels and , therefore, they would only play 3 sets, then that would be a very interesting argument. The WTA would have to support them as it would be another move towards equality  but the GS orginasers would never accept it: interesting...

The men would NEVER agree to this. Who has all the power in the mens game at the end of the day, the top players. Who does best of 5 protect? The top players.

TheMadness • July 4, 2013 6:11 PM BST
"why is that"

Because they're just piggy backing on the interest Federer and Nadal and other men have brought to the game


If they are just piggy backing on the interest in Federer and Nadal how comes they run a successful WTA tour. There is more to the tour than the grand slams, if people only want to see the men there would be no womens tour surely, because no-one would fund it, yet last time I checked they are doing just fine.

A number of people in this thread don't seem to realise there are tours and tennis isn't just the 4 grand slams.

you could argue your average atp mug is piggy backing on the interest of federer and nadal

with no prize money?

in terms of the interest

about 10 players between both tours would sell tickets on name only

The only real solution to the make women best of 5 is to make the early rounds of both tournament best of 3 until the quarter finals. It's a logistical nightmare otherwise, you would need 3 weeks to fit the tournaments in, where are you finding the extra weeks from, because the tours don't want to give up another 4 weeks a year. In fact they would probably be angry (see ATP is very annoyed at USO making the final a Monday final).

The top men in turn won't agree to this, the best of 5 format insanely stacks the deck in their favour in the early rounds (yes I know the upsets here at Wimbledon), when Nadal was down sets to players at start of French Open he would have been in real trouble in best of 3, best of 5 and he's never in any danger, for this reason the top men will never agree to playing best of 3 when that is protecting them. Thus you are stuck where you have no real workable options.

Also has been pointed out, too many people think of this in the context of now. The mens era is in a golden age so it's supremely popular, but if you just went on popularity your prize moneys would be getting adjusted on both sides every 5 years. The mens era won't always be this popular. You won't always have Federer and Nadal to sell out stadiums. British people will be biased, but even the likes of Murray hardly sells out stadiums abroad.

*Mens tennis won't always be this popular.

can't remember last female player who would sell them out though - Martina?

there's two obvious ones...

big 4, serena and maria are clear cut

then you could argue a few more

find them like watching paint dry personally

i don't like watching Maria either, but that doesn't matter

Given I have seen Serena and Maria fill out stadium like Madison Square Gardens (and not together either), something tells me they can sell tickets.

I always saw the prize money at the majors as somewhat of a compensation for the whole year rather than solely and only prize money for winning matches at those four specific events. For working out and practicing all year, for getting your ranking high enough for direct entry through playing other events and all the stuff that male and female players do alike throughout the year.

Hence I don't think best of 3 contrary to best of 5 is really an issue in equal pay. That's all I'll say about this. It's a completely pointless debate that comes up every few months and there's NEVER a winner in the debate. NEVER! Don't know why someone unrelated to (top100) tennis players would spend lots and lots of time complaining about equal pay either.

i wonder if i make a thread about futures and challenger prize money it'd get so much interest

That and once you've gone to equal prize money, there is no real way out of equal prize money. No-one is going to budge now. Even on tour at the top level prize money has turned equal. ATP use to give out far bigger prize money at all levels, now it's only the lower levels of the tour. Events like Madrid, Rome, Canada, Cincinnati all went joint events and now give out equal prize money.

But it is a lot less money.

*reply to aaron's post

aaronh
big 4, serena and maria are clear cut

then you could argue a few more

Yes I can argue for Ana Ivanovic and Cirstea. People would pay big bucks to watch these are stretching their muscles.

The Universal rule is: you get what you paid for. In womens we get less then what we paid for. The Universal Rule is screwed!

This cannot last long. So, it's only matter of time when they'll require those muggs to play best of 5 in Womens GS tournaments.

to be fair i would happily pay the women more to play even less sets! lol

Jul 4, 2013 -- 11:33PM, mengmeng wrote:

to be fair i would happily pay the women more to play even less sets! lol

Jul 4, 2013 -- 11:06PM, yyyy wrote:

aaronhbig 4, serena and maria are clear cutthen you could argue a few moreYes I can argue for Ana Ivanovic and Cirstea. People would pay big bucks to watch these are stretching their muscles.

I was actually tempted to mention Ana who remains relevant despite being fairly useless

Is there any other major global sport where Women get even close to equal pay to men?

Tennis obviously started something, but why haven't other sports followed? It's been a long time since Billy Jean King.

Women should get paid much more than men.-

the money issue should only really apply in slams and not what hey get paid in the non slam tourneys as they both play the best of three

the greatest tennis matches in history have come from the mens game, usually in slams, usually in 5 set epics lasting hours, the women are not value for money, they benefit from the mens game

it's simple, men and women should only be paid if they are doing exactly the same job, men are working harder in slams and provide the fans better value for money and of course should be paid more, the women in tennis should be eternally grateful to their male counterparts for propping up their income

women also have the benefit of having on court coaching, additional help unlike the men and still get paid the same

men also have coaches... and on court coaching isn't allowed at slams

and to be fair, we hear greatest match ever and epic and classic every time a match goes 5 sets

getting rid of 5 sets would mean we don't hear the hyperbolic nonsense every time that happens

countless 4 set matches have entertained me in this tournament more than the supposed 5 set epics

Jul 5, 2013 -- 3:29AM, AdvantageAussie wrote:

Is there any other major global sport where Women get even close to equal pay to men?Tennis obviously started something, but why haven't other sports followed? It's been a long time since Billy Jean King.

such a thing is impossible I'd imagine in team sports, and those are the majority of the womens sports closest to popularity of tennis

If you ask is it fair to pay men more because they bigger and stronger because of being born a man then you could also ask if its fair to pay someone lucky enough to be born with more talent.  The players that more people pay to watch generate more money for the sport.

Jul 5, 2013 -- 3:41AM, teo813 wrote:

Women should get paid much more than men.-

+1

Tbf I would prefer they just scrapped on on court coaching, but not because of reasons listed in this thread.

In this thread: seasonal 'tennis fans' show off their idiocy, but thankfully won't be seen again until next year, or at least until the next slam.

edy • July 4, 2013 9:48 PM BST
I always saw the prize money at the majors as somewhat of a compensation for the whole year rather than solely and only prize money for winning matches at those four specific events. For working out and practicing all year, for getting your ranking high enough for direct entry through playing other events and all the stuff that male and female players do alike throughout the year.

Hence I don't think best of 3 contrary to best of 5 is really an issue in equal pay. That's all I'll say about this. It's a completely pointless debate that comes up every few months and there's NEVER a winner in the debate. NEVER! Don't know why someone unrelated to (top100) tennis players would spend lots and lots of time complaining about equal pay either.

Report • Quote • Block User aaronh • July 4, 2013 9:50 PM BST
i wonder if i make a thread about futures and challenger prize money it'd get so much interest


Yup ... and look who it is making these points ... the people that are here - and follow the tours - all year round.

Jul 5, 2013 -- 12:09PM, n88uk wrote:

Tbf I would prefer they just scrapped on on court coaching, but not because of reasons listed in this thread.

on court coaching for all

>> Is there any other major global sport where Women get even close to equal pay to men? Tennis obviously started
>> something, but why haven't other sports followed? It's been a long time since Billy Jean King

> such a thing is impossible I'd imagine in team sports, and those are the majority of the womens sports closest to
> popularity of tennis

I would have thought that Golf being an individual sport with global appeal would be closest Tennis

In Golf, the men make much more money than the women.

Individual or not, I can't think of a single other sport where women make the same money (or anywhere close to the same money) as the men.

no one wants to see women play best of 5.

Just read Mr Harmans book. Had almost forgot about those million dollar sponsor attracting superstars Stakhovsky and Simon. What a prime pair of seething neverwozzer nomarks.

Judging by the quality of the final, women should receive less than what the wheelchair players get.

had this been a 7-5 5-7 14-12 final I imagine this fred wouldn't have seen much action today


(and yes this has been an awful final)