Tennis
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 149 comments are related to the topic:
Is there anyone other than these idiots who thinks WTA players getting paid the same is fair?
Is there anyone other than these idiots who thinks WTA players getting paid the same is fair?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 149
|
By:
only at Indian Wells
 |
|
By:
a race battle is more entertaining than a simple battle
|
|
By:
do either of you go to the cinema to watch films
 |
|
By:
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"  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Give me some global viewing figures rather than Americans watching Americans play each other.
|
|
By:
"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 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
come on we cant still puting whomens behind in the world of job's. its not ectic at all.
|
|
By:
It's clear from this thread that women can't even type better than men
|
|
By:
Sorry, I'm presuming annibal is a woman. Like aaronh clearly is
|
|
By:
o.k i'm idiot. i thiuk it's fair equal prize money. dont give a phuk what you think.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Equality is rarely fair. Only before the eyes of the law
|
|
By:
There is one reason and one reason only way men should get paid more. They are better so deserve to earn more.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Well i think WTA should play 5 set matches. And even if they did they should earn less. So i agree.
|
|
By:
my point was, length isn't a determinant of entertainment value
That's what they tell you  |
|
By:
Walked into that one
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
wta five sets matches: 5% ding dong classics, 95% forks in eyes mugfest misery.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
A number of people in this thread don't seem to realise there are tours and tennis isn't just the 4 grand slams.
|
|
By:
you could argue your average atp mug is piggy backing on the interest of federer and nadal
|
|
By:
with no prize money?
|
|
By:
in terms of the interest
|
|
By:
about 10 players between both tours would sell tickets on name only
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
*Mens tennis won't always be this popular.
|
|
By:
can't remember last female player who would sell them out though - Martina?
|
|
By:
there's two obvious ones...
|
|
By:
big 4, serena and maria are clear cut
then you could argue a few more |
|
By:
find them like watching paint dry personally
|