men and women tennis players..............?

Question

..are getting paid the same. are the women now playing the extra set or are they just stupidly trying to be p.c. for no reason????

Answer 1

Well, it was inevitable that the feminists would nag away until they got paid the same.

Lets just highlight the arguments against equal prize money from a dispassionate point of view.

Wimbledon, (as an example) without men playing, wouldn't attract anything like the same interest and sponsorship as it currently does. In fact, it would probably fold.

Men, play best of five sets, which is considerably more gruelling. Sue Barker stated that women had offered to play best of five as well, but there wasn't time. I don't believe that they have offered at all, because many of them wouldn't be able to sustain their game over five sets. It was merely a sop to suggest that they were being prevented.

There is far more strength in depth in the mens game, so that it is far more difficult to qualify.

Now, they want equality of pay, but they are not equal for the reasons I have stated above. So, something else must be driving this, and that is the feminist agenda for equality, where it is not earned or justified. It is the politicisation of sport, and the equality of outcome, regardless of whether there is an equal demand from the public and TV viewers.

John McEnroe suddenly changed his position on this, arguably because he now has four daughters. Sue Barkers argument that it sends out the wrong message, is a bogus one, because what people are paid is intended to be a reflection of market forces, ie effort put in and supply and demand. So, if you don't comply with the feminist agenda, you are sending out messages, and presumably, the wrong one.

It always saddens me a little, that, in these sort of situations, women show a complete lack of fair play, and will scrape the barrel for any excuse to advance their cause. Credibility evaporates.

I can think of two possible answers to this dilemma.

The men play best of three sets, or, more in tune with true equality, we play one unisex tournament, with men playing women. Now that will call their bluff.

However, when it suits their case feminists will call on the chivalry (come on boys don't make a fuss) card when it suits.

Answer 2

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 3

The equal pay is not for equal work on the court. The women draw crowds and sponsor dollars just as well as the men do, if not better for the period between 2000-2006. Their tour is more competive from seeds 1-10 than the men and their matches matches more interesting, again particularly during the aformentioned 6 year period.

Based on that, they are now getting an equal cut of the overall purse.

Answer 4

must admit the thought crossed my mind as well!! I think the women will still only be playing best of three sets instead of the five like the men, which to me seems a bit unfair to pay them the same as they are not playing the same length as the men.

Answer 5

Yes it's bl**dy disgraceful, they've been trying to get equality for years, they should play a 5 set final at least, and be made to wear the long Victorian dresses.
Er sorry no they should wear shorter skirts.

Answer 6

I agree with Rafael Nadal but thumbs down to Vaidisova She looks a bit manly to me. In my opinion it would have to be a tie between Roddick and Nadal in the men's and a three way tie between Dementieva, Sharapova and Hantuchova

Answer 7

they r not playing 5 set

Answer 8

everyone knows that the men are better players have more stamina etc. fact is the womens game is less predictable and brings in the punters also there are more women than men who follow tennis so why should'nt they get equal pay.

Answer 9

just trying to be p c.if they want the same money they should have to play the same amount of games.and after all these years
did anybody hear any of there say we will play the same amount of games.for the same money?because i never heard it mention.