Now the ladies at Wimbledon have equal prize money as men, will they now play 5 sets ?

Answer 1

I'm going to answer this question and sort of throw myself on the grenade because some people are viewing this as a gender equality question, when that is not the core issue. I do believe women should get equal pay for equal work, but that is not what is happening here. The women's champion over the course of a grandslam is on court for about 12+ hours for 7 matches best of 3 sets. The men's champion is usually on court for 24+ hours for 7 matches best of 5 sets. Since there is at least 75% more work involved over the course of a tournament. I would say if the men made 10% to 15% more in prize money would be fair for all the extra work. If you Disagree with this-- lets look at this scenario, would it be fair to have equal prize money if the women decided to play a 1 set winner take all match, and the men should have to play a longer best of 7 set match for equal prize money. The women's champion would then be on court for about 5+ hours and the men' champion would now have been on court for about 40+ hours. If you think this is Not Fair, then the above best of three sets and best of five sets should not be fair either. I beleive a small 10 or 15 % more for the men for 75% more work is a fair bonus. If the women gather together and decide they want to play best of 5 sets throughout the tournament, then they too deserve equal prize money with the men. Otherwise the men should be allowed to petition the governing body for Wimbledon to play only best of three set matches for the duration of the tournament. This of course would lead to more upsets on the men's side and evensome grandslam champions that didn't truly earn the title. Which would in turn lead to possibly compromising the merits of winning a grandslam title. No true tennis fan wants to see the integrity of the sport come into question. Well thats my position, So remember...if your going to throw grenades, leave the pin in.

Answer 2

No, feminists don't believe in fair play, they believe in equality of OUTCOME, even when it is not earned or deserved.

Billie Jean King, that well known feminist, started stirring this pot in the 1970's.

The answer is to call their bluff, and go for true equality, a unisex competition. Of course, there wouldn't be any female qualifiers. So, they want equality of outcome, but not equality of opportunity.

I have listened to some of the male TV sports presenters, and what a bunch of metro-sexual sycophants they are. Of course, if they hadn't supported equal pay, they would have been sacked, and certainly wouldn't have got to express their views on TV.

I hadn't realised that the women at Wimbledon were already getting 95.4% of what the men were getting.

It is obviously PC, feminist and political and nothing to do with fair play. The men are the main attraction, without doubt, they play best of five sets, and there is much more strength in depth in the mens game, so it is much harder to qualify.

I strongly suspect that Sue Barker doesn't really agree with it, but she is too smart to say so. Everyone, including the sycophantic males have been cowed into submission, and daren't speak their minds. John Lloyd has done just that on TV but didn't offer one argument in favour of it. He can't, because there isn't one.

Answer 3

They wont play 5 sets, although they did volunteer to do it. I am not sexist, but the men were right to get paid more. The fact is the reason women were on less money is because there are far less spectators at womens matches, Mens tennis brings in far more money. People might not like it but they are facts. Do people think women footballers should get the same money as men footballers? No, because the clubs dont make enough money. I think some women should stop moaning about it and go and watch some tennis matches, that is the reason most womens sports have less money than mens, because no women go and watch it

Answer 4

The tennis culture, for reasons best known to itself, decides that women play best of 3 sets. There is no reason why they can't play the best of 5 like the men. In most sports i.e athletics, martial arts, swimming etc, women compete for the same duration of time as men. In squash women play best of 5. Strength has nothing to do with playing on court for several hours. Imagine if they adopted this reasoning for, say, the Marathon. Men have to run the 26.2 mile, but the women only have to run 16 - ridiculous. Equal pay for equal effort, that's what I say.

Answer 5

No
Women would not be able to play 5 sets like men can. They are not as physically strong.
For proof, you just have to look at the amount of touraments that are missed by female players due to injuries and compare it to that of the male players.

I do think it is good that the prize money is equal for both male and female. Womens tennis drawsjust as much of a crowd as mens tennis and there is a lot more depth.

Answer 6

I am sick to death of all this feminist crap. If the women want equal money then they can play the same length of games as the men. After all if they play football, rugby, cricket, athletics they still play by the same rules as the men. The girls in my work don`t get to knock off 2 hours early and receive the same money as the men.

Answer 7

...No I don't think so. I think the prize money is equal between men and women, because in tennis women's tennis can actually be more exciting to watch. Why? Because girl's points last longer. Men's points are very quick because they hit so darn hard. They can ace you four points in a row (Winning a whole game with out his opponent even touching the ball)
And since girls can't hit as hard or as heavy as men they have to come up with clever nifty shots that make points more interesting.
When coming to prize money, It's not about which sex puts more time into it, its about who gets the crowd :P

Answer 8

Wish the men at Wimbledon accept the ladies' prizemoney and show more skinn

Equal Curiosityy

Answer 9

It's all about the Benjamin's (aka dollars, euros, pounds, whatever). Capitalism.

If the women EARN the same (i.e. generate the same $ in audience viewing), whether they play 5 sets or 1, they obviously should be paid the same.

No different than anything else with capitalism. Professional athletes simply generate more $ than do teachers - although obviously teachers contribute more to our society.

That's just capitalism.

Answer 10

No, they won't. But that's not what the prize money is about.

There's no real reason for women being paid any less than the blokes in such a tournament, infact many of the women's games are more interesting than the men's, so for entertainment value everyone deserves the same pay check.