Female Tennis players vs Male Tennis Players?

Question

Should they get equal pay..?

I have noticed there's a lot of talk that the Female Tennis players get less fiscal payouts than the men.

The fact is, the Females play less than the Men do. I understand that the first round of Wimbledon men play over 5 sets (first to 3) , were the Females play over 3 sets (first to 2)

Ok, give them same pay.. if they do the same amount of work..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5116674.stm

Answer 1

Male tennis is a faster and more intense sport. Females play at a slower pace (except Venus and Serena) not to mention the difference in match lengths. The bottom line is that tickets to female events do not sell as well and the prizes are given out accordingly.

Answer 2

The reasoning behind the prize money differences at tournaments is due to the following:

1. Men play more sets than women, and therefore work harder and longer than the women do. The minimum number of sets a man needs to win to win wimbledon is 21, while a woman can win the tournament in just 14 sets.

2. Tickets to men's matches sell more quickly and in greater volume than for women's matches. Men draw bigger crowds.

3. Television and media coverage of tennis events is still focussed mainly on the men. The men therefore generate more revenue for the media.

4. Men are worth much more to advertisers than women, because they are on our tv more. This makes them a more expensive commodity than the women.

I'm sure most of us would agree that women's tennis should get equal coverage in the media and that as athletes they are just as worthy as the men, however you can't really argue with the fact that the men have to play more sets than the women.

Answer 3

Some tounaments the pay is equal i believe. if you look at it this way, in the NBA and WNBA do they get paid the same amount or any other pro level sport. The men do have longer matches as far as how many sets u have to win to win the match. So i am not going 2 say they should get equal pay but there shouldn't be a big difference either.

Answer 4

The top female tennis players would be lucky to beat a player ranked 500! A few years ago Serena Williams played a male ranked 800 (i think) and she was beaten easily..... A lot of the females have male hitting partners.

Answer 5

Men play longer. If if men win every match in straight sets, the still only play the same as if a women went the distance every match.

Women earn more money than men at grand slam events anyway, because they can enter both singles and doubles, and progress a long way in both, because they hae a much lower workload.

Answer 6

Of course they should get equal pay, they do the same amout of training and work just as hard as the men. The only reason they dont at the moment is because its probably all men on the board and they like nothing better than getting one up on the ladies

Answer 7

If it was based on an hourly rate, then the woman's champion gets between 2 and 3 times the pay that the Men's champion gets.
Unfair? methinks Yes.
the campaign for equal pay for men starts...NOW!
I hope this helps

Answer 8

Woman look sexier in the outfits so they should definitly get paid more becasue I will pay extra just to see if one of the little skirts fly up...

Answer 9

So a few noteable women have started bleating how its "unfair" that men get paid more than women, and the male winner's purse at wimbledon is "£30,000 m ore" than the women's purse. Sadly, Tony Blair has now backed this.

Before everyone starts losing their heads over this feminist machine, do we care to even analyse the figures? Lets do that:

1) Total Prize money for men = £5,197,440
Total Prize money for women = £4,429 440
Male winner's takings = £655,000
Female winner's takings = £625,000

From the above figures, without any other factors, yes it looks like women are getting a bum deal, however, if we assume same number of entrants (128 men and 128 women as with this year's) and no tie-breaks are played:

2) Maximum number of sets played by men = 5
Maximum number of sets played by women = 3
Minimum number of sets played by men = 3
Minimum number of sets played by women = 2

3) Total prize money per set (male) = £1,039,488
Total prize money per set (female) = £1,476,480

Is it me, or did anyone just notice the ladies purse perset get dramatically larger (by almost £440,000) than the men's? Lets carry on.

5) Male winner's taking's per set (over maximum 5 sets) = £131,000
Female winner's takings per set(over maximum 3 sets) = £208,000

Male winner's takings per set (over minimum 3 sets) = £218,333
Female winner's takings per set(over minimum 2 sets) = £312,500

So we can clearly see, by playing fewer sets, women are in fact currently getting paid MORE to do less work. As this is these players main income, ie what they do for a lviing, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of women today currently protesting about unequal pay to male counterparts for doing the same amount of work int he same job? Lets hear what Venus Williams has to say:

(Start of Quote)
"Women and men should be treated equally. This is an amazing sport and there is as much interest in women's tennis as there is in men's. Just because we can't play five sets because of our genes, what can we do?" (End of Quote)

So its settled then, I guess she means IF by some physical advantage (that no one has control over) men are subject to do more work, then pay is irrelevant and women should be REWARDED for their GENETIC INABILITY to do the same work, or better yet, men should be PENALISED for their UNCONTROLLABLE ABILITY to do more work, amount of time playing should not matter, and number of sets played should not matter.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like the feminist machine wanting to turn a situation COMPLETELY in its favour whilst penalising men, and at the same time, protesting in the name of "equality". Note how the "equality" angle only refers to pay, not the amount of work done to earn that pay. Seems very convenient isn't it. I'm all for equality, but when you start paying people for the sake of "keeping the sexes equal" whilst neglecting the work done to earn that money (i,e a male office manager and a female office cleaner), whilst using the point of sex to disregard work done, then you're asking for trouble.

You will set a precedent that will end up being applied in ALL work places whereby women, irrespective of what they do or how long they do it, get paid the same as men who happen to do more, for longer and in POSSIBLY higher possitions of authority. I certainly wouldn't be happy to hear my9-5 receptionist gets paid the same as me if I was the CEO working 8-6. That would be a joke, I'd quit my job and work on reception: no responsibility, no accountability, no hassle.. SAME PAY.

"Oh women should get the same cause they train just as much" - sorry, but boxers, male OR female alike only get paid when they fight and win, tennis shouldn't pay ANYONE on the basis of trianing only, otherwise I'd join, train and NEVER play tournaments and STILL get paid.

Be realistic people, use your common sense: if number of sets or duration of play is irrelevant, you might as well pay ALL the participants, irrespective sex, how long they play, how many sets in all they play, or how far they get. THEN that would be truly equal.

Answer 10

equal pay, the tennis is just as good