Do you think that men and women's tennis championship earnings should be the same?

Question

Yahoo! Staff: This is the real Martina Navratilova. Find out more here - http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=190

Answer 1

I think the prize money should be proportional to the profits that each competition generates i.e. if the TV rights to the ladies final are sold for more than the mens', then they should get a larger prize - performance related pay, regardless of gender.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the players compete for a tiny fraction of the revenue actually generated by the competition but as in all entertainment, the real money is to be had elsewhere (catering, ticketing, TV rights, merchandising etc.) so they have to fight for whatever they can get.

The All England club isn't covering itself in glory by perpetuating this supposed inequality but I think this is small beer compared to the real exploitation (of all the players and us ordinaries) going on. Rather than focussing on the men vs. women debate, why not challenge the status quo that lets the men (yes, they are nearly all men) in grey suits continue to squeeze every drop of profit out of a national institution?

So to answer the question directly: No, earnings should not be the same just because of the players' gender, they should be determined by fairness and transparency in the 'business' side of the tournament.

Answer 2

I am sad to say that I feel the ladies game has lost some of it's verve since the greats like yourself played at the best tennis venue in the world... Wimbledon. It's good to see that you are still Wowing the crowds though. Anyway to answer your question as to whether Women should command the same prize money as the Fellers. My knee jerk reaction would be to say Yes! However I think that you lassies should ask yourself this question; Can you as supposedly the weaker sex have the staying power to play a five set match. I think that your own honest reply will provide you with the answer you are looking for. However, although men are usually stronger, women are usually able to endure for longer during prolonged physical activity so might fare quite well in 5 set matches. Even if women continued to play 3 sets, they should still get equal prize money. They put in just as much work to win the title when off the court and play for quite a while on court. Both men and women are exhausted after their matches so have put in a lot of effort, equal amounts of effort most likely...so women should receive equal prize money. The gap between amounts of prize money has been getting narrower every year, so why don't the chauvenists at Wimbledon take the plunge and finally pay women the same.

Answer 3

I say that women tennis pros should be paid the same then some redneck is going to stuff the fact down my throat that the guys play more sets per match. If I agree with that sentiment then along will come some neo-feminist and threaten to bite off my balls for inferring that women are somehow inferior. So... I think that ALL tennis players along with ALL pro sports people are ridiculously overpaid! The original question is obscene. Why do we value someone, who's only skill is hitting a fluffy ball over a net, better than say a Nurse or a Hospital Cleaner. This question does not deserve an answer. It merely reflects the sick society in which we live.... Martina, forgive me if I offend you but, go and get a real job! Don't hit me with that old bull that you were a role model for lots of young lesbians. No you were not! You, and all the rest of the womens tour are glorified Barbie Dolls: the men are no better; only newsworthy when swearing at an umpire..... Y'know, I feel better for getting that off my chest. ToodlePip!

Answer 4

As a woman who used to play tennis, and who still loves the game (and Wimbledon!) to distraction, I'd have to say that you cannot pay women the same as men unless they do the same amount of work as men do. As it is, a men's match can finish in just over an hour and can last up to/over 3 hours, whereas a ladies match can be over in a mere half hour. Quite often I see ladies matches at Wimbledon that take roughly the same time to finish as a single men's set. There is clearly an obvious disparity there. The game brains, association should immediately sit together to find a way out in ressolving the issue with both the game plan for Male & Female for the tennis so that the players are not being discreminated. If we atleast start with tennis then may be we are on towards a new era. If, I say If Hillary Clinton could become the first Female President of united states then may be we are not far from a new world.

Answer 5

Getting to your question. Absolutely and positively yes!! Women should be paid equally. Men's tennis and Women's tennis are two separate events. Let's get real here: The only time men play best 3 out of 5 is at the grand slams, and at the year end championship. But for the most part, they play best 2 of 3 like the women during the season.

Why should the women be paid less? The prices for the tickets are the same for the men's events as well as the women's events at the grand slams. So they should be paid the same amount of money.

Answer 6

Given that data, it would be fair to say that the earnings structure of both tours should be at least about the same since the revenue generated from television sponsorships and ticket sales are probably in the same range for both tours. It might seem unfair given that at the majors, women play to two sets of three while men play to three sets of five. Nevertheless, this is how the tournaments are structured, and if the particular tournaments feel that it should be equal pay for equal play, then they should modify the format to ensure this. Otherwise, they are profiting more off of the women's tour, and that would be bad public relations.Players put in a lot of effort to get to that level but men are generally stronger so more men would be able to cope with a 5 set match than women (that is not to say that no woman could cope with 5 sets). However, although men are usually stronger, women are usually able to endure for longer during prolonged physical activity so might fare quite well in 5 set matches. Even if women continued to play 3 sets, they should still get equal prize money. They put in just as much work to win the title when off the court and play for quite a while on court. Both men and women are exhausted after their matches so have put in a lot of effort, equal amounts of effort most likely...so women should receive equal prize money. The gap between amounts of prize money has been getting narrower every year, so why don't the chauvenists at Wimbledon take the plunge and finally pay women the same.

Answer 7

they are profiting more off of the women's tour, and that would be bad public relations.Players put in a lot of effort to get to that level but men are generally stronger so more men would be able to cope with a 5 set match than women (that is not to say that no woman could cope with 5 sets). However, although men are usually stronger, women are usually able to endure for longer during prolonged physical activity so might fare quite well in 5 set matches. Even if women continued to play 3 sets, they should still get equal prize money. They put in just as much work to win the title when off the court and play for quite a while on court. Both men and women are exhausted after their matches so have put in a lot of effort, equal amounts of effort most likely...so women should receive equal prize money. The gap between amounts of prize money has been getting narrower every year, so why don't the chauvenists at Wimbledon take the plunge and finally pay women the same.

Answer 8

Which of the tennis matches have the bigger viewing figures? I know that Wimbledon's Mens' final has greater figures than the womens'. And we all know that it is sponsorship/advertising that pays the prize money! I am sure that is why the mixed doubles winners get only £90,000 - although I find these the best matches to watch!

I know you were good enough to beat some male players but I feel that most women do not have the strength (both physical and mental) to beat a man. And until they compete against each other, why should they be paid the same?

The only other way it may be possible is if all matches were 3 sets (or 5!), so mens and womens matches were the same length.

Mind you, I do find tennis (both mens and womens) very very boring now that you (and your contemporaries!) are not playing. It seems that nowadays it is all base line stuff - we do not get the exciting matches any more! And where are the characters? Don't get me wrong, I know you took your tennis very seriously but you looked as though you had fun when you played. Nowadays, the players look as though they are nothing more than robotic corporations. They do not look as though they are enjoying themselves. I only wish the Invitation events were shown on television!

More interesting to me is what you think - should men and women be paid the same? I would love for you to let me know! If you get a chance, I look forward to hearing from you!

Enjoy the end of Wimbledon!

Answer 9

Yeah, I think women should have the same amount of pay, but only if you can play the same amount of games as the men.
Fairs fair after all, if you want the pay you must take the pain and I really can't see some of these younger and more dainty ladies doing it.
That doesn't mean women with the strength and determination and most likely the capabilities should miss out, and I have seen you play many times in the past Martina and always thought you could give the men a run for their money.
My ex and I were talking about this the other day and he says it's unfair that women should even try because the men has it much harder and so many more games but if women can prove they have the capabilities then they should be given the same rights.

Answer 10

Oh how I would love to say yes.

Sadly I can't. I'm sure that to professionals, the demands of womens tennis are at least equal to the mens game.

However, this isn't a debate of a gender issue, but one over the overall 'product'. Just how the mens and womens games attracts the general public and therefore money into the sport (which is used to pay the players).

In all the various debates I've seen, this view seems to be glossed over. Perhaps womens tennis needs listen to the view of the paying public.

The womens game does not match the mens game for excitement from the viepoint of the spectator. In the mens game there are close, competative games from Round One while in the womens game it isn't until the second week of Grand Slams that you start to see anything that comes close to a contest.

The mens game is faster, with more serve and volley play. The womens game tends to be of longer rallies played from the baseline where points are won through unforced errors rather than true winners.

Until the womens game reaches the same entertainment level as the mens, I'm afraid the men on the circuit deserve their bonus - call it an entertainment premium.

When the WTA finds ways of making the womens game more of an entertainment spectacle then this entertainment premium should rightly be withdrawn.

Answer 11

I am a firm proponent of equality and fairness – but
I’m just not understanding the furor over the All
England Club’s decision not to award equal prize money
to men and women. Shouldn’t equal prize money be
given in the realm of an equal rules set? While there
are subjective arguments that the women’s tour is more
dynamic and may have a deeper public viewership, these are characteristics that could easily change from one year to the next. However, there is one irrefutable, year-after-year FACT – the men at Wimbledon play a best three-of-five
format versus the women’s best two-of-three format.
The men’s matches are simply longer than women’s
matches. In my mind it’s like paying a 40 hour a week
employee the same annual salary as a 30 hour a week
employee, when both perform a similar job. I agree
that both hypothetical employees should be paid the
same hourly wage, but certainly at the end of the day
the employee who works more hours should be
compensated more. For Larry Scott, the WTA CEO, to
state that the women players are “receiving
considerably less prize money than their male
counterparts” is grossly misleading – the difference
is in fact less than 5%, which, in all fairness,
should not be labeled “considerable” in a public
discussion. If prize money were equal but the amount of sets played is not, Isn’t there an implied counter argument
being made that the men should work more for the same
amount of money as the women? Isn’t the sensible
solution to level EVERYTHING and have both tours
compete on a best two-of-three format AND have equal pay?