Do u think women in tennis should be paid equal amount as men ?

Question

They play 2 out of 3 sets, which usually takes an average of 1 hour to finish. They could hardly run , work out & need a breather after each & every point, not to mention all the fake breaks they need to freshen up & injury time out. Still they are paid 97% of what men get. Do you think it's fair ? Men play hard & their matches usually last 5 hours, average 3.

Answer 1

Definitely not in the Slams, since they play less. Women's tennis
is also more error prone than men's tennis. The quality argument is in favor of the men, since their matches are more likely to be
decided more by unforced errors and double faults more than
groundstroke and volley winners and aces. Look up any match
stats for any tournanment, and you will see this true. Men play at a higher level than the women, and generally deserve. It's about
equal pay for equal work, and the women don't do near the amount of work the men do, so they should get paid less.
Men don't have the bathroom break and shirt change break that the women get. I don't think men's matches usually last 5 hours.
In some cases they do, but most of the time they don't. Their
matches average longer because they have to win 3 sets to win
a Slam singles match, as opposed to 2 for a women. The maximum number of sets a man can play is 35, while the maximum number of sets a woman can play is 21, when we're talking Grand Slam singles finalists. That's only 60% of the men's max. The minimum number of sets a woman can play for a Slam finalist is 14, while the minimum a man can play is 21,
which is 150% of what a women can play. A man singles finalist
has to play a minimum of 21 sets to get to a Grand Slam single
final, while a women's finalist has to play a maximum of 21 sets.
How fair do you think that the women's maximum number of sets for a Grand Slam singles finalist is the same as the men's
minimum number? Check out the match stats for the Grand Slam finals in men's and women's singles, and you will see what I mean by the men playing better quality tennis than the women.
The ratio of aces+winners/double faults+unforced errors is better in the men's singles finals than it is the women's singles
finals.

Answer 2

I agree with you on the fake breaks. But a woman's match is equal to a men's match because they are not strong enough to play 3 of 5 sets. So 2 of 3 is equally as tiring to the girls just as it is to the guys. And woman's rallies last longer. So an average set can be an hour to an hour and a half. I don't think it's fair. They should be paid equal amount.

Answer 3

In the women's game the rallies last longer than the men's I think there are times that a men's match can be like a match on who serves more aces. The physical condition of the women should also be considered we are not blessed with the endurance like the men. A lot of players are prone to injuries, just imagine the condition of women's tennis if the top players are forced to play 3-5 sets. I think they deserve equal money it's not that they train less because they play less, they train as hard and their expenses are almost equal. If you were saying that there was a time when players like Martina Navratilova are playing 5 sets, just look at the women's game at the moment it is more of power than it was. About the prize money issue don't you see that Federer and Nadal are the only ones benifiting from all the millions at stake while in the women's it is more interesting because you don't really know who will win.

Answer 4

While your points are not entirely non-valid, I would answer that, first, as we have seen time and time again, best-of-five in major events has proven to be a more effective and entertaining test of the men's games. Presumably most women on tour could play best-of-five, but it would not likely be worthwhile, as the number of comebacks would presumably be much smaller. Second, regarding playing doubles, in the first place, many fewer of the top women play doubles in majors recently - Helena Sukova at the 1993 US Open may well prove to be the last player ever to reach the finals in singles, doubles and mixed. In the second place, the argument that a few women would have the chance to earn more than the top men only tries to perpetuate a lack of depth in the women's game. If all the top women played doubles as well as singles, the disparity in earnings would widen for the women's field, which would presumably have a negative effect in the long run. As for less competitive, the game scores might be, but, especially on grass, one might contend that it's very likely that women play as many shots as men do. It would not surprise me at all if statistics were to reveal that, say, Justine Henin hits the ball as many times or more in two sets as Ivo Karlovic does in five. The relatively small difference at the top being insignificant cuts both ways. One might just as well ask why Roger Federer neads forty thousand pounds more. If the draws were played at different times and in different venues, as golf tournaments are, then one might be able to make a case that the men are much more popular and generate vastly more revenue, etc. But with all the players playing together for two weeks, the same number of matches available to everyone, and with one event requiring equal participation from representatives of both sexes, to pay the men a pittance more comes off as spiteful and gives the message that men are more valued than women. The symbolism of equality is worth more. I would also add that disparity can breed more of the same, not because of the top payment amounts, but because of the bottom. Making the main draw at a major and winning a round or two extends a lot of unheralded careers. The women's tour may not entirely catch up to the men's tour (even though most events on both tours are best-of-three), but in a sport where the majors are all men and women playing together, and where the list of all-time greats is much more equally impressive than most (except for sports such as gymnastics and figure skating, where the female side is generally well ahead in popularity), it seems better for the sport as a whole that the total amount of prize money paid to both sexes is equal.

Answer 5

Equal ,and as a man I love to see them play as well as see the tallent.Now the men also have good play and talent,BUT that macho of batting the ball so hard at such a short range is strength yes , but I cant see the real talent.Thats not good tennis.

Answer 6

I think that women should definitely be paid an equal amount, if not more. It's not all about time. It's about talent, the amount of energy they expend and the goodwill and money they attract.
What about some of the idiotic displays that some of the male players have put on, taking away from all that the game is about. Complete distractions that probably take up most of the 5? hours.

Answer 7

I would rather see them get it then just go back into the federations. There careers are not that long so they should make as much as they can as they can during that period. I know 3out of 5 is longer, but some people just to see the ladies play. Pay them. No one will get upset.

Answer 8

No, I think all tennis players should be paid a percentage of the gross, or else make it on winnings alone. I see no reason why anyone in the entertainment business should not be paid on the basis of what the audience pays for.

And yes, professional athletes are in the entertainment business.

Answer 9

no, not really because women only play 2-3 sets and men play 3-5 sets so i don't think that would be fair to men because they play more time & more sets

Answer 10

no.

best of 3 not equal to best of 5