Wimbledon women?

Question

What do you think of the decision to pay women tennis players the same prize money as men when it is likely that they will play fewer sets?
Is this not now unfair to men?
I'm very much in favour of equality but this seems to be more money for less performance.

Answer 1

This annoys me, because the Wimbledon organisers buckled under pressure.

The difference in pay was never a gender issue, it was one that reflected the length of playing time. This reflects common sense. If someone works 3 hours for example they get paid less than someone who worked 5 hours.

What also annoys me is that the women tennis players and their associations tried to get equal money on grounds of 'women's rights', exploiting this excuse to get more money (what they really care about). They don't give a toss about womens rights and are disrepecting those that genuinely do, for profit!

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

I am very suprised. I like being a woman and Feminine but I know there are some things in life that I am not physically built for. Yes equal pay for the same job but this decision is very unfair to men. I really dont know how they can justify this without making woman play the same amount of sets. It is noticable too that there are more top woman players that play in the doubles earning more prize money and I have always suspected this is beacuse they only play the three sets.

Answer 4

If women tennis players want the same amount of money as men they should play the same amount of of sets, I wouldnt expect to be paid the same money as someone else if I worked less time I know that in some cases that the mens game can be over in less than 5 sets but they have to be fit enough to go the full hog if women want the same they should be expected to work and train to the same level

Answer 5

Equal Sets= Equal Money anything else is unfair in anybodies mind I would think

Answer 6

I think the womens game is more entertaining. Ive been to see wimbldon once, and never watched a mans game. :-).

Answer 7

unfair

Answer 8

yeah, the women are boring too watch too.