2006-11-26 03:39:57 · 12 answers · asked by TruthHurts 3 in Sports ➔ Tennis
Don't get me wrong - the womens' game can be just as entertaining as mens' - but the plain fact is they just don't work anywhere near so hard nor stay on court for as long.
Therefore: if women really do claim they are worth the same money - for much less time on court - that can only mean women think they are worth much MORE than men and deserve a HIGHER rate of pay...!
So, Hey...! - HOW SEXIST IS THAT...???
2006-11-26 03:55:25 · update #1
H_A_V_0_C would have a point - IF he happened to be right...! BUT HE'S PLAIN WRONG...! At Wimbledon, anyway, it's certainly the high seeded men's games that draw the biggest crowds - not the women's... Not even Sharapova would outsell a match between Nalbandian vs. Grosjean - and, for your information, Grosjean is consistently rated one of the top 5 for watchability - irrespective of his world ranking...!!!
2006-11-26 10:10:28 · update #2
i am a girl and i play tennis but i agree that its okay if the women are getting less pay cos the maximum length of their match goes to about 3 hours while men sometimes gotta slog for 6 hours.earlier i used to feel that this inequality is not right but once i was acquainted with the facts i realised that they are being paid according to their work.i disagree with what a person mentioned about womens tennis being better than mens.definitely not.mens tennis has such a load of action and energy compared to the womens game which is lame in the absence of top 10 players.mens tennis does attract more crowds and is more popular,the guys are working much more so they definitely deserve more money than the women.
2006-11-26 21:30:04 · answer #1 · answered by suvs 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because who really watches men's tennis anyway?
More people are watching women's tennis, aren't they? I would think that women's tennis probably does better than men's on TV, except for maybe grand slam final matches.
You get a first round match at the US Open, who's match gets more interest, Maria Sharapova or Nikolay Davydenko? Both are Ranked #3 on their respective tours, but who watches men's matches that don't have Fed, Nadal, Blake, or ARodd in them???
When you get out of the top 10 I don't think it's close...
More people probably want to see Tatiana Golovin play than Ivan Ljubicic. And if you think, "that's not about tennis", well, you might be partly right. But is is certainly about the business of tennis, which is also where purse money comes in.
It isn't about 3 sets vs. 5 sets. It's about who's bringing people to the seats, and who's bringing the TV ratings.
Hrbaty vs. Berdych... completely unwatchable.
Nalbandian vs. Grosjean.... unwatchable.
etc...etc...etc...
2006-11-26 09:20:37 · answer #2 · answered by H_A_V_0_C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It really does not bother me in the least. I would rather the ladies play 2 out of 3 to keep the level high anyway. The men players do not mind so I do not think we should either. The cost of a ticket is the same whether it is the men's quarters day or the women's quarters day during the second week, so based on that alone they should get equal. I do not think the Majors are hurting for money so why not keep everyone happy and share it equally.
2006-11-26 05:21:18 · answer #3 · answered by messtograves 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The other three grand slams already give out equal pay for only the singles champions. I do think people have a point when they talk about the difference in playing time because of the fact the men have to play 3 out of 5 set matches and the women only have to play 2 out of 3 set matches. They should probably just go along with the other grand slams and just give in because eventually the pressure from the WTA and bad publicity will get to them over the years.
2006-11-26 05:12:24 · answer #4 · answered by Mike B 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, I'm a woman and a feminist and I love tennis. But I agree with you. Equal pay for equal work. As well as the reasons you said, men's tennis raises the most revenue as it's more popular than women's. Olga, please be kidding, love!
2016-03-29 09:29:10 · answer #5 · answered by Pamela 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question has already been answered by me before already. sort of and it was chosen the best answer by the asker. If the women want equal pay, they should play equal number of sets, not less. It's sexist against men by those who think the women should receive the same pay for playing a lesser amount of tennis. If the women can't play best out of five set matches during a two week tournament, they shouldn't get less, or make the men play best of three sets. It's not equal pay for equal work as it exists now. See my answer below.
Do u think women in tennis should be paid equal amount as men ?
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.
My answer:
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.
Source(s):
http://2006.australianopen.com/en_au/sco...
http://2006.australianopen.com/en_au/sco...
http://2006.rolandgarros.com/en_fr/score...
http://2006.rolandgarros.com/en_fr/score...
http://championships.wimbledon.org/en_gb...
http://championships.wimbledon.org/en_gb...
http://www.usopen.org/en_us/scores/stats...
http://www.usopen.org/en_us/scores/stats...
1 month ago - Report Abuse
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.
Source(s):
http://2006.australianopen.com/en_au/sco...
http://2006.australianopen.com/en_au/sco...
http://2006.rolandgarros.com/en_fr/score...
http://2006.rolandgarros.com/en_fr/score...
http://championships.wimbledon.org/en_gb...
http://championships.wimbledon.org/en_gb...
http://www.usopen.org/en_us/scores/stats...
http://www.usopen.org/en_us/scores/stats...
2006-11-26 04:01:32 · answer #6 · answered by Answerer17 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're kidding yeah? You can ripped to pieces on here for asking questions like that. It is extremely Sexist. Can't wait to see other peoples answers especially from any female tennis players. Snigger-snigger. LOL
2006-11-26 03:43:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Women seem to do more commercials, modeling, and public charities, while doing their tennis occupation, which is where they get their other part of their salary
2006-11-26 05:59:41 · answer #8 · answered by EC 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True....but men haven't got boobs and a good looking ****!!!!
2006-11-26 03:42:04 · answer #9 · answered by wandabeppe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
women needs to buy diamonds too you know!!!!!
2006-11-26 18:29:50 · answer #10 · answered by mj 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋